Why didn’t Alexander the Great go west?

[ZombieFriedNuts]

Why didn’t Alexander the Great go west?
I have seen a map of his empire and it seems to be a bit sporadic.
It is long, thin and it has gaps in places where it looks like he just ignored them, for example Bithynia and Epirus and there’s a long thin strip near Saka. And to go back to my earlier question Why didn’t he go west, or did he just die before he had the chance and why is it mostly desert.
The map I looked at
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/MacedonEmpire.jpg

[Shadow]

I remember reading in some novel that Alexander had an uncle or some close relative by the same name who went west.

But i think the real reason maybe the East is more of a threat (Persians) and the loot and frame won were greater.

[lars573]

I remember reading in some novel that Alexander had an uncle or some close relative by the same name who went west.

But i think the real reason maybe the East is more of a threat (Persians) and the loot and frame won were greater.
Your thinking of Phyrrus of Epirus who was decended from Alexanders maternal grand-father.


On topic.
Alexander III the great didn't go west because there was nothing there except Carthage a few Philhellene (the Romans and Etruscans and such) and hellenic city states (like Syracuse) and barbarian tribes. And none of them had conquered Macedon and made it a tributary state, and humiliated Alexander I king at the time in 450 BC. Like the Persians had

[Craterus]

Historians believe that he was planning to go west. This is taken from a post that I read at another forum:


I've read books about rumors of Alexanders plans. Apparently there was a document, probably written by Eumenes, that came into the hands of Diodorus Siculus, that told Alexanders future plans. The military plans that it told of was the conquest of Arabia, then the building of 1000 large warships for a campeign to take Carthage and the western Mediterranean. It also told of the building of a military road all the way across North Africa from Alexandria to Gibraltar complete with harbors, bases and arsenals. There were also plans for new city foundations with the transplantation of populations between Europe, Asia and Africa. Lastly, there were plans for great building projects. The completions of Hephaistions Pyre, six colossal temples built in Macedonia and Greece, including a rebuilt temple of Athena in Troy. Lastly, he had plans to build a pyramid tomb for his father to rival and out-do the Great Pyramid of Giza. Nobody knows if they're 100% true, but he did have a large hunger for conquest and glory. The plans are also so far out that it's hard to disbelieve that he didn't have plans that at least came close to these. I just thought I'd share. I thought it was quite interesting.

[Avicenna]

Yeah, there's been speculation about Alexander wanting to go West to perhaps take Rome and Carthage. Pyrrhus went West, but Rome was already quite organised and powerful by then, so even though he was a brilliant military tactician, the Romans had caused enough casualties to force him to leave Italia, or face defeat. Alexander simply died too young. He spent much of the campaign fighting Persia and chasing Darius, and then he was so far East that he died before reaching Macedonia, where his men were returning to. I doubt that they'd want to leave for another campaign though, seeing how Alexander was probably reluctant to return even after years campaigning far off in the Asia.

[Keba]

Why didn’t Alexander the Great go west?
I have seen a map of his empire and it seems to be a bit sporadic.
It is long, thin and it has gaps in places where it looks like he just ignored them, for example Bithynia and Epirus and there’s a long thin strip near Saka. And to go back to my earlier question Why didn’t he go west, or did he just die before he had the chance and why is it mostly desert.
The map I looked at
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/MacedonEmpire.jpg

I'd say that it's not like he could make any other choice. He went to war with Persia, which was, at the time, by far the greatest threat to both Macedon and all other Hellenes. Once he commited himself to battle he could not stop until either he controlled it, or was crushed by it. Going half-way would only result in his enemies coming back again.

And once he was at the Indus ... who would refuse a chance to try and take the untold riches said to be found in that land, given that he was, well, there already.

As for going west ... well, he was young. He had conquered a pretty big empire, there is no doubt that he had some borad plans and every intention to go west (and, in my opinion, probably would have conquered that as well), but, you know, death kinda gets in the way of any plans you make.

[conon394]

I'd say that it's not like he could make any other choice. He went to war with Persia, which was, at the time, by far the greatest threat to both Macedon and all other Hellenes. Once he commited himself to battle he could not stop until either he controlled it, or was crushed by it. Going half-way would only result in his enemies coming back again.

Persia was hardly a threat to either Macedonia or any other leading state in Greece, rather more of a convenient victim.

But besides dying Alexander would have faced a significant challenge, before ever getting farther west than Greece in that a number of Greek states and Antipater were very likely on the verge of revolt. Considering how alienated the core of Alexander’s army was I think he would have had a hard fight on his hands.

[Keba]

Persia was hardly a threat to either Macedonia or any other leading state in Greece, rather more of a convenient victim.


True, but I was talking about perception. They had this huge, wealthy, powerful nation that had done a lot of not-so-nice things to he Hellenes. Second, even if not truly a threat, they still had the potential and the resources. Just look at the number of men at Gaugamela. Sure, they were beaten by a lesser force, but still, if some ruler decided to forge these people into an army. Numerical superiority alone does not win a battle in itself, but it helps.

As to what-if, all such thinking is nothing more than simple mental excersises, to see how many details you can come up, but, history is forged by unforseen events, thus, making a what-if impossible.

[conon394]

They had this huge, wealthy, powerful nation that had done a lot of not-so-nice things to he Hellenes

Almost 200 years in the past. In the latter half of the 4th century Persia was mostly concerned with just staying together and hoping no one leading power emerged in Greece (since such a state would almost certainly be able to slice away Persia western provinces at minimum).



As to what-if, all such thinking is nothing more than simple mental excersises, to see how many details you can come up, but, history is forged by unforseen events, thus, making a what-if impossible.

I really don’t see much of a ‘what if’ in my post. Antipater, Athens and Aetolia had all effectively defied Alexander and or were taking active steps to raise troops right before he died. Considering the examples of Thebes and Parmenio I doubt leaders like Antipater and Leosthenes would have acted so defiantly unless they were on the cusp of a coordinated revolt.

[ZombieFriedNuts]

So if he had lived for longer there might have been rebellion and he would be Alexander the not so great.
Would he still of been remembered if there had been though.

[Craterus]

I think he would be remembered (because of the amazing early campaigns), but probably not referred to as Alexander the Great. Who knows?

[Ludens]

I remember reading in some novel that Alexander had an uncle or some close relative by the same name who went west.
You are thinking of Alexander of Epiros. IIRC he was brother to Olympias, but despite his position of king of Epiros he was subject to Makedon. While Alexander the Great (whose name was IIRC spelt differently from Alexander of Epiros) went to war in Asia Minor, Alexander of Epiros left for Italy. There are several similarities between his campaign and the campaign of the later Phyrros of Epiros: both went to Italy at the request of the Tarentines, had initial succes, but were double-crossed by the Tartentines and lost. Unlike his more famous successor, however, Alexander of Epiros did not survive the betrayal. Also, whereas Phyrros fought against the Romans, Alexander actually fought with the Romans.

[Avicenna]

Persia was always the target of the Macedonians, I think. Philip realised that Persia was weak and ripe for conquest, with most of the men that faced Greece in the last conflict being Greek mercenaries themselves. This realisation that the greatest empire of the age spanning over multiple continents was actually ready to be taken would have been a great incentive to attack. There's also the history between the Hellenes and the Persians.

[conon394]

So if he had lived for longer there might have been rebellion and he would be Alexander the not so great.
Would he still of been remembered if there had been though.

If Antipater et al failed, he would probably be Alexander the Greater, since he would have essentially been put in the position of using his new ‘fusion’ army to suppress not just Greece but also Macedonia. Alexander would have been pushed more toward the Persian element of his new empire. Given that outcome the propaganda around him would no doubt be even more grandiose and unchallenged, not to mention any additional conquests westward.

Even if he lost, Alexander the Great would certainly continue to serve the interests of whatever Greek/ Macedonian successor states came into existence.

The only why I can see Alexander stop being ‘The Great’ is if he fights a brutal campaign and loses; and the Greeks carry the day – that is Athens and company emerge as strong or stronger than Antipater (or any other Successor) and had played a key role in the major battles.

Now Keba will get no argument from me though, the above is all just ‘what if’.

[Keba]

Now Keba will get no argument from me though, the above is all just ‘what if’.

Sorry 'bout that, came out wrong. I was actually referring to 'what if's in general, not your particular post.

History is funny that way ... who knows what could have happened, insignificant events can (and in many cases have) alter things on an amazingly grand scale.

[Steppe Merc]

On topic.
Alexander III the great didn't go west because there was nothing there except Carthage a few Philhellene (the Romans and Etruscans and such) and hellenic city states (like Syracuse) and barbarian tribes. And none of them had conquered Macedon and made it a tributary state, and humiliated Alexander I king at the time in 450 BC. Like the Persians had
He invaded Persia because they were rich, not because they "humilated" the Macedonians. Perhaps that was an excuse, but if it wasn't for the Persians riches and huge empire, he would have had no intrest in it. Which is why he didn't go west. And even at this time, they did have a great deal of money, especially since they controlled the trading route to the East and China.


Persia was always the target of the Macedonians, I think. Philip realised that Persia was weak and ripe for conquest, with most of the men that faced Greece in the last conflict being Greek mercenaries themselves. This realisation that the greatest empire of the age spanning over multiple continents was actually ready to be taken would have been a great incentive to attack. There's also the history between the Hellenes and the Persians.
I wouldn't call the Persians weak. Declined yes, but they were hardly a bunch of idiots that are often potrayed. Darius the Third was not nearly as good as his first namesake but even Darius the First was defeated by the Scythians, so a loss doesn't neccasarily mean incompetince. Of course the Scythians didn't invade Persia...
I don't believe the Persians would have been vanquished by a lesser general. Perhaps their empire would have been divided into warring satrapies, but few other people could have replicated Alexander's actions.


Just look at the number of men at Gaugamela.
Please don't, as all of those numbers are insanely inflated.

[lars573]

He invaded Persia because they were rich, not because they "humilated" the Macedonians. Perhaps that was an excuse, but if it wasn't for the Persians riches and huge empire, he would have had no intrest in it. Which is why he didn't go west. And even at this time, they did have a great deal of money, especially since they controlled the trading route to the East and China.
I've always though of it as Alexander invaded because the Perians humiliated them years ago. But conquered them cause the Persian empire because it was loaded.

[Reenk Roink]

Your thinking of Phyrrus of Epirus who was decended from Alexanders maternal grand-father.

Well actually, the man who went west was a contemporary of Alexander III and was not Pyrrhus (he was born circa 319 BC) but rather a different Alexander, who was the brother of Olympias (Alexander III the Great's mother). He was placed on the throne of Epirus by Phillip II of Macedon (Alexander III the Great's father) on the death of the previous King of Epirus, Arymbas I.

Alexander of Epirus was asked by the Tarantines for aid, as the Samintes and Lucanians were being troublesome, and so he arrived and defeated them in 332 B.C at Paestum and went on to reduce a few cities of theirs, but was killed in a battle near Pandosia.

[Geoffrey S]

I've always though of it as Alexander invaded because the Perians humiliated them years ago. But conquered them cause the Persian empire because it was loaded.
They were rich, and the traditional Greek dislike of Persians would potentially make it easier for Alexander to unite Greece under one banner with conquest in mind; once he had conquered Greece he had to have a target to prevent revolts, and be seen to succeed. The money was probably the main motivation, since Macedonian treasuries weren't all too hot after the struggle for Greece, but the symbolism of attacking Persia was also more powerful than heading into the relatively less prestigious west.

[Avicenna]

Relying on Greek mercenaries to try to conquer Greece does seem quite weak to me. It was probably like the Roman empire, declining after quite a long period of military strength.

EDIT: Reenk, Pyrrhus of Epirus was the son of (or at least was related to) Alexander of Epirus, and also went west to try and conquer Italia, but failed as his army's core was crushed in a Pyrrhic victory against the Romans. He then drove the Carthaginians out of Sicily and was king of Sicily, but got driven out as well because he was unpopular. He then besieged Sparta (unsure about the outcome myself) and eventually died in a streetfight in Argos.

[Steppe Merc]

Just because they used Greek mercanries didn't mean their native armies (well, sort of native... armies raised from their own lands) no longer existed or that they sucked. Their cavalry was quite good, and their infantry was good... for the Persian way of fighting. They just didn't really have their own version of the heavily armored hoplite, and in order to fight Greeks, they hired other Greeks. If they were fighting the nomads to the East, they wouldn't have used Greeks, they would have used their own allied nomads. The hiring of Greeks I think was less of a sign of desperation and more of a good tactical move to try and counter a form of warfare that their armies were not designed to fight against.

[Barbarossa1221]

He went East cause thats where the booty was. There was an established enemy over there who the Greeks had been fighting for a long time and his father Phillip had planned an invasion but died before it could be carried out so Alex simply picked up the torch and ran with it.
If he went West there wouldnt have been much of a prize really, scattered tribes with little loot to speak of.

[orangat]

Going east would give Alexander the perfect excuse to get his Greek allies to join the Macedonian to take revenge on the Persians and pursue Alexander's pan-hellenic program.

Going west would mean going at it alone and leaving Persia and her vast hoards of wealth free to tempt the Greek factions with bribes and fund anti-Macedonian activities. A total strategic blunder.

[English assassin]

According to my Iranian wife, its because east lay the greatest and most civilised nation on the planet, and west lay a load of barbarians living in huts and painting their arses blue.

According to me its because east lay a load of effete decadent Persians incapable of defending themselves, and west lay a load of fierce and brave warriors with whom you Did Not Mess.

You pays your money...

[Orda Khan]

According to my Iranian wife, its because east lay the greatest and most civilised nation on the planet
I assume she is talking of India

........Orda

[English assassin]

You can assume what you like, but as I have to go home this evening I'm going to stick with Persia...

[Rosacrux redux]

I'd say it's the pretext (uniting the Greeks to go after the eternal menace of the Greek world seems plausible enough, no?) the substance (the Persian wealth was unmatched anywhere in the "known world" at that point) and pure geostrategical reasons (Italy was nothing, Carthage didn't mess with the Greeks outside of Sicily... Persia was the one and only target and a little drang nach osten was the sound and productive way to go).

Had Alex lived long enough, he would go West, of course. He was too ambitious not too. But, frankly, the way he was conducting (in battle or in "civilian" life) how long could he live anyway?

Dang, the only successor (the only one that had the cojones) that could eventually unite the beast of an empire Alexander put together, was Antigonos... and he was defeated by the "coalition of the willing" (actually, of those who had more humble ambitions - ie. satisfied with a slice of the pie, instead of the full monty).

[Steppe Merc]

According to my Iranian wife, its because east lay the greatest and most civilised nation on the planet, and west lay a load of barbarians living in huts and painting their arses blue.

According to me its because east lay a load of effete decadent Persians incapable of defending themselves, and west lay a load of fierce and brave warriors with whom you Did Not Mess.

You pays your money...
Oh jeez. Persians, effete? Just because they wore their hair at proper length (long), and the rich wore bright clothing didn't make them gay, or bad fighters. Admitedly, the use of kohl is sort of odd, but then, Romans and Greeks wore dresses, while Iranians wore pants.
They were excellent cavalrymen and light infantry. They just could not stand up to a specific type of fighting that their entire region of the world had not encountered. The only reason you and anyone thinks that is because the Greeks and Romans were demonizing their enemies. You don't create a huge empire without a strong military.

Alexander would not have used so many Persians and Iranians in his armies if they were poor soldiers. Yes at this time they were suffering due to not particullarly good leadership. But does that mean that the Romans were pathetic fighters and they were all perverts because of the failures at the end of the empire and the sexual prefrences of more than a few of their emporers?

I'm with your wife, on this one.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

There are a number of reasons in my opinion. Some of which may have already been mentioned, but I don't have the time to read them right now.

Let me give you a list of reasons:

1) Phillip had just finished revamping his army and therefore defeated many of the Greek city-states for control on mainland Greece and Macedonia.

2) Supposedly (not sure if it's true or not), Darius had paid the assassins that killed Phillip. Some say it was Alexander's mother, but if it was Darius, that could have been reason to avenge his fathers murder.

3) Phillip had made plans to go east instead of west and I think the plan of action in a campaign of that sort was already ready for Alexander when he came to power.

4) From what I know, the Persians and in India, had plentiful amounts of gold and silver. The amount could have been more than to the west. In fact, it probably was.

5) From what I have gathered, Alexander did plan on moving west. He (I think) had his mind turned on the Italian Penninsula and just died too early.

Those are all the main reasons I can come up with in a matter of two minutes. I might add more later.

[Kralizec]

Actually, the first target Alexander would have gone after if he had gone west would be Carthago.

[Keba]

Actually, the first target Alexander would have gone after if he had gone west would be Carthago.
Carthage was a power at the time, yes, but I believe it would be easier to go after Italy. After all, with Macedonian dominance of the Hellenic world, they could have used the colonies in Italy as a starting point, then, afterward, it would be easier to take Carthage, having greatly expanded the Hellenic power base in the Mediterranean.

If nothing else, taking on the Romans at that time would be akin to practice for the future campaign.

[Ludens]

3) Phillip had made plans to go east instead of west and I think the plan of action in a campaign of that sort was already ready for Alexander when he came to power.
Weren't two of Philip's generals already operating in Asia Minor when he was murdered? If my memory serves me right this means that Alexander could not have turned west: he already was at war in the east. Though the Persians had not shown any expansionism since Xerxes, they would have paid the Greek cities to rebel. Come to think about it: wasn't the Athenian orator Demosthenes charged with accepting Persian gold in exchange for rousing the Greeks against Phillip?

[Rosacrux redux]

The Persian did pay the Greek cities to revolt: namely Sparta. Well, Sparta wasn't technically in the "coalition", but Agis (king of Sparta) accepted the gold of Pharnavazos and the Persian ships, in order to incite a "revolt", but the only thing he accomplished was forcing (violently) a dozen Cretan cities to turn against Alexandros. After Agis' departure, most of them returned to their previous neutrality. The Athenians engaged in similar talks, but abandoned them abruptly when news of Issus came westwards.

And yes, Makedonia was already at war with the Persian. Parmenion was already a few years in Asia Minor with a force of 10.000, although after his initial successes, the Rhodian (in Dariush's service) Memnon managed to check his advance and take back most of the cities Parmenion liberated. But Parmenion provided the much needed bridgehead and Alex could easily proceed and invade Asia Minor.

Regarding westwards expansion, I would say strategically it would make sense to go after Carthage. Rome was just a strong city-state, the Italian cities - save the Greeks in the far south and Sicily - were relatively poor and underdeveloped and they didn't even pose a challenge. Carthage was big, extremely wealthy and a loucrative target altogether. Also, since Alex had already egypt, and practically could use the Libyan corridor, it would only make sense to go westwards and grab the whole northern Africa (he didn't even need Sicily, although he would seize it too in such a case).

[conon394]

Ludens

No Demosthenes was charged with bribery later as a result of the 'Harpalus Affair'.

Around 324 BC when Alexander returned from the east his friend Harpalus (Alexander's treasurer at Babylon) fled with something like 700 talents (apparently he feared punishment for fiscal malfeasance). He had been granted Athenian citizenship and sought refuge at the city. Demosthenes was one of several commissioners who was put in charge of the silver Harpalus brought while Athens tried to figure out what to do with him (various officials were all demanding his extradition Antipater, Olympias, etc). The Athenians ended up allowing Harpulas to 'escape' but it was discovered that half of his silver went missing. Demosthenes was charged with having accepted a 20 talent bribe from Harpalus and went into exile.

It's interesting to note however that around the same time the Athenian general Leosthenes was somehow keeping 8000 veteran mercenaries together (without any obvious source of pay or employment) in Sparta. At the same time Athens was simultaneously negotiating with Alexander to prevent the exiles decree from coming into force and Antipater who was on the cusp of revolt. Personally I tend to think Demosthenes and his compatriots funneled the money to Leosthenes but had to fall on their political swords when the missing money was brought to light since Athens had not yet formally broke with Alexander... The Athenian democracy had no means for secret action unless a politician undertook such action on a personal basis and accepted the risk that he would be libel for justifying a missing amount of money on the basis of simply ‘trust me ( I believe Pericles for example, actually pulled this off successfully).

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Weren't two of Philip's generals already operating in Asia Minor when he was murdered? If my memory serves me right this means that Alexander could not have turned west: he already was at war in the east. Though the Persians had not shown any expansionism since Xerxes, they would have paid the Greek cities to rebel. Come to think about it: wasn't the Athenian orator Demosthenes charged with accepting Persian gold in exchange for rousing the Greeks against Phillip?

No, I don't believe any of Phillip's generals was in Asia Minor. As it was, Alexander started the campaign fighting many battles in Thrace, so Phillip wasn't that far ahead.

[Ludens]

No Demosthenes was charged with bribery later as a result of the 'Harpalus Affair'.
I see. Thanks for the information conon394 and Rosacrux Redux.


No, I don't believe any of Phillip's generals was in Asia Minor. As it was, Alexander started the campaign fighting many battles in Thrace, so Phillip wasn't that far ahead.
Well, there was a full-scale rebellion at Phillip's death, not just in the south but in the north as well, so Alexander had to put those down first before moving to Asia Minor. This does not mean his father could not have operated in the area, as he had beaten those mountain tribes before. Rosacrux mentioned that Parmenion was fighting there, but IIRC there was another Makedonian general (Attalos?).

[Geoffrey S]

No, I don't believe any of Phillip's generals was in Asia Minor. As it was, Alexander started the campaign fighting many battles in Thrace, so Phillip wasn't that far ahead.
No, Parmenion was there, I think with the infamous Attalus, preparing the way for a later invasion at the time of Philip's death.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

No, Parmenion was there, I think with the infamous Attalus, preparing the way for a later invasion at the time of Philip's death.

Possible I guess...

Don't know why I'm argueing, it strengthens my point...

[rotorgun]

Possible I guess...

Don't know why I'm argueing, it strengthens my point...

Hit quitin' yourself! Hit quitin' yourself! :boxing: :laugh4:

Geoffrey S. is correct; Parmenio(n) and Attalus (uncle of Cleopatra, the one who insulted Alexander at the wedding feast) were both sent to Asia Minor for preliminary military oprations in the Sring of 336 BC. (Doherty, The Death of Alexander The Great, pg xii). Phillip sent them there to prepare the way for his expected invasion. This proves that he was very far ahead in his plans to invade Asia, so I have to disagree with you on that point. As a matter of fact, it was under his direction that Parmenio(n) completed a short campaign to secure a bridgehead across the Hellspont. This was fortuitous for Alexander, recalled to Pella in 337 BC from his exile a year ealrlier, for it ensured that Parmenio(n) was out of the way during the succession after Phillip's murder in 336. (I've always thought that the timing of his murder was a little too convenient)

You are correct that Alexander had to go north in 335 BC to deal with the Ilyrians and Thracians, who had revolted along with Thebes. This was more because these peoples no longer felt obligated to Macedonia after the death of Phillip II than because of Phillip's lack of preparation. Sensing the weakness of Alexander's position, and he was not universally accepted by all of Macedonia's nobility, as subsequent events revealed, they probably saw their chance to back out of their previous treaties with Macedonia. This was a direct threat to Macedonian, and Alexander's, ambitions. If they suceeded, the Greek Cities would have balked as well, putting the whole plan in jeapordy. This would never do, for Alexander would not be denied his glory.

As to why he didn't go west? Maybe they didn't have enough covered wagons? :shrug: :laugh4: Seriously, the whole idea of a Pan-Hellenic invasion of Asia was very dependent on the political support of the Greek and Balkan allies. The Macedonian army, powerful as it was, was too small by itself to complete the task. Certain contingents of the army, such as the Thessalian cavalry and the Illyrian skirmishers, etc. were essential to its tactical success. If the Macedonians had suggested to their "allies" that they had a plan to move west, I doubt they would have been able to convince them, let alone even agree among themselves to do so. The nobles were counting on the immense wealth of Asia to recompense them for their support of the king. Such gains were uncertain in the west, for too much was unknown about it.

They were confident that they could defeat the Persians. Had not Greek arms triumphed in the past? Should we not take up were the heroes of the past left off? Should we not avenge the depradations of these effeminate Persians to our Greek and Macedonian homelands? What enemy was there in the west to rally Macedonia, Greece, Thrace, and Illyria against? No, it had to be to the east.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Hit quitin' yourself! Hit quitin' yourself! :boxing: :laugh4:

Geoffrey S. is correct; Parmenio(n) and Attalus (uncle of Cleopatra, the one who insulted Alexander at the wedding feast) were both sent to Asia Minor for preliminary military oprations in the Sring of 336 BC. (Doherty, The Death of Alexander The Great, pg xii). Phillip sent them there to prepare the way for his expected invasion. This proves that he was very far ahead in his plans to invade Asia, so I have to disagree with you on that point. As a matter of fact, it was under his direction that Parmenio(n) completed a short campaign to secure a bridgehead across the Hellspont. This was fortuitous for Alexander, recalled to Pella in 337 BC from his exile a year ealrlier, for it ensured that Parmenio(n) was out of the way during the succession after Phillip's murder in 336. (I've always thought that the timing of his murder was a little too convenient)

You are correct that Alexander had to go north in 335 BC to deal with the Ilyrians and Thracians, who had revolted along with Thebes. This was more because these peoples no longer felt obligated to Macedonia after the death of Phillip II than because of Phillip's lack of preparation. Sensing the weakness of Alexander's position, and he was not universally accepted by all of Macedonia's nobility, as subsequent events revealed, they probably saw their chance to back out of their previous treaties with Macedonia. This was a direct threat to Macedonian, and Alexander's, ambitions. If they suceeded, the Greek Cities would have balked as well, putting the whole plan in jeapordy. This would never do, for Alexander would not be denied his glory.

As to why he didn't go west? Maybe they didn't have enough covered wagons? :shrug: :laugh4: Seriously, the whole idea of a Pan-Hellenic invasion of Asia was very dependent on the political support of the Greek and Balkan allies. The Macedonian army, powerful as it was, was too small by itself to complete the task. Certain contingents of the army, such as the Thessalian cavalry and the Illyrian skirmishers, etc. were essential to its tactical success. If the Macedonians had suggested to their "allies" that they had a plan to move west, I doubt they would have been able to convince them, let alone even agree among themselves to do so. The nobles were counting on the immense wealth of Asia to recompense them for their support of the king. Such gains were uncertain in the west, for too much was unknown about it.

They were confident that they could defeat the Persians. Had not Greek arms triumphed in the past? Should we not take up were the heroes of the past left off? Should we not avenge the depradations of these effeminate Persians to our Greek and Macedonian homelands? What enemy was there in the west to rally Macedonia, Greece, Thrace, and Illyria against? No, it had to be to the east.

Yeah, I said that he already had plans that were made by Phillip.

[Avicenna]

You know, come to think about it, there's prrof that Alexander did plan on going west. When he died, Craterus was building a fleet in the Cicilia. It's said that it was to transport the soldiers back to Greece and Macedonia, but I doubt that a whole fleet would be built just for that. Hired merchant ships would do.

[Watchman]

Actually, the first target Alexander would have gone after if he had gone west would be Carthago.One would assume he'd have had to go through southern Italy and Sicily in that case anyway. The Carthaginian heartlands were sort of far away otherwise (the desolate North African coastline between Egypt and Carthage hardly appears a good invasion route...) and they could muster awfully strong navies.

Betcha he'd also started having serious border trouble and rude defecting regional overlords fairly soon had he not died (which broke the whole thing up into presumably somewhat easier adminstered domains). His empire comes across as kind of stretched, and in several directions bordered by pesky and practically unconquerable nomadic peoples only too happy to engage in some pillaging the second an opportunity presented itself. 'Course, those assorted mountain ranges both inside and at the fringes of the empire were ever a headache and source of trouble (as well as good mercs) for all suzerains...

[rotorgun]

You know, come to think about it, there's prrof that Alexander did plan on going west. When he died, Craterus was building a fleet in the Cicilia. It's said that it was to transport the soldiers back to Greece and Macedonia, but I doubt that a whole fleet would be built just for that. Hired merchant ships would do.
The only fleet that I am aware that he was building was the one he intended to use to invade the Arabian peninnsula. This fleet was being made ready near Babylon if I recall. Some historians are of the opinion that Alexander was poisoned by some officers who secretly opposed the invasion. Ptolemy, keeper of the imperial corpse and writer of memiors, is one they suspect to have had the best motive. Any plans that Alexander had beyond these is speculative at best. Some say that he dreamed of taking on Carthage, Sicily, and the Romans in the future, but the sources are not explicit. I certainly would not put it past him, considering the ego that he must have had. :director:

[The Wizard]

That's not a long, thin empire in any kind of possible interpretation. Incorporated in Alexander's empire were probably the most important regions of the ancient world, missing only China (India was a work-in-progress ~;)).

[edyzmedieval]

But why didn't he go eastern than India? Why did they consider it the end of the world? :dizzy2:

[Conqueror]

He couldn't get more east than India without first taking over the whole (or at least the northern portion) of India. Which he wasn't able to do when his army refused to follow him. Of corse, if he had lived and managed to keep his empire in one piece then he might have returned to India to take the rest of it.

[edyzmedieval]

His army refused to follow him? Why? Dead spirits? Mummies? They saw the Gods? :inquisitive:

[Geoffrey S]

They were fed up?

I mean, they set off knowing they'd face the Persians. It was a big empire, sure, but they were known. It would be, and proved in fact to be, far more difficult getting the troops to fight an almost unknown enemy in challenging terrain. There's a limit to how far a general can drive his men, and Alexander reached his; mind you, that limit was more than many generals could have ever reached and is one of the things that sets him apart as the Great in my mind.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

His army refused to follow him? Why? Dead spirits? Mummies? They saw the Gods? :inquisitive:

They heard the numbers at which the other Indian civilizations had like the Magadhan. The next army Alexander would have had to face was the Mauryan army, which at the time, had in the range of 300,000 infantry, 1500 elephants, and 24,000 cavalry. I'm sure this news disheartened them and it would have me too!:embarassed:

EDIT: Wrong empire! Lol...

[Kralizec]

The Mauryan empire did not exist until after Alexander's death.

[Geoffrey S]

They heard the numbers at which the other Indian civilizations had like the Mauryan. The next army Alexander would have had to face was the Mauryan army, which at the time, had in the range of 300,000 infantry, 1500 elephants, and 24,000 cavalry. I'm sure this news disheartened them and it would have me too!:embarassed:
Magadhan empire.

[edyzmedieval]

Wow. 300.000 infantry? Are these uber numbers real? :dizzy2:

[The Wizard]

Magadha was crumbling under its last, old king when Alexander was forced to turn back in India. Why do you think it was so easy for Chandragupta Maurya to take it over just a few years later?

Regardless, his troops saw it as a daunting task. Alexander knew better, but someone had been sowing fear amongst his troops, and had been sowing it deep. That, paired with the fact that they had been on campaign for twenty years, made it a pretty easy choice for them: no more.

edyzmedieval: The Mauryan Empire is indeed estimated to have had such numbers of troops available -- at its height. When Alexander was in India it didn't even exist, so that was not the case at the time. However, India was always a heavily populated region compared to the rest of the world -- there's a reason why it has over a billion inhabitants nowadays. That is why even in periods of internal strife, when many petty kingdoms fought each other, that large armies could be raised, larger than anything European states could hope to wage war with.

[edyzmedieval]

Guess the Indians liked to multiply since early times.... :laugh4:

[Craterus]

His army refused to follow him? Why? Dead spirits? Mummies? They saw the Gods? :inquisitive:

I think the issue is more that the Hellenic parts of the army had not been home for many years. The veterans were longing to return to their wives and their children.

India was an unknown land full of disease and such that had already had some effect on Alexander's men already.

I would not want to march further into unknown territory, against powerful enemies and a precarious climate. Especially after so long away from home. Many of the troops would have seen this as their last chance to return home.

[hoom]

Are these uber numbers real?Rome & allies had manpower of military age available up to ~250,000 at the start of the 2nd Punic war so those numbers aren't really all that amazing.
...Unless they actually do indicate the number of men able to be put in the field simultaneously.

[Avicenna]

The tropical diseases and poison weapons of the Indians were also very demoralising for the Makedonians.

If Alexander dared to go to China though, I think it wouldn't be too difficult to take over, since it was at the time in the Warring States period.

Craterus: I agree with your first point. However, I don't think India was unknown territory. After all, in a map of the known world, there was even China, showing that the Greeks had at least heard of the Asian civilisations. There also should have been the Silk Road, and there might have been some tales of the 'Far East'.

[Craterus]

Unknown territory, nonetheless. Navigating through the Indian forests while combatting diseases and tribes would not have been an attractive thought for the Macedonians. They felt they were marching into the unknown. How far would Alexander have had them gone? If they had followed him, they should have expected not to return home.

[Tellos Athenaios]

In my opinion: Alexander fought the Persians because after having united the Greeks he had to find a way of somehow keeping them united. To do this he needed a worthy purpose any Greek would accept - and ever since the Persian Wars there had been an enormous anti - Persian attitude among the Greeks resulting in the fact that their word for Barbarians became their word for Persians. So the Persians were his ideal target to gain him what later played such a great part in Roman Politics: auctoritas, or authority/goodwill.

Now, the reasons why he eventually stopped conquering the East was that after facing king Porus in battle his men didn't feel like going further against Elephant-riding Indians. And that Alexander, off course, had his problem of shaping his empire by establishing new institutions since the former ones had mostly perished because of the disorder the crisises in the Persian government had brought to those lands.

Probably, Malaria put an end to his ambitions while he was in Babylonia. But even if he wouldn't have died at that time he probably wouldn't have conquered the West, since he, as proved by the fall apart of his empire after his death, couldn't be so sure about whether his new caught peoples would remain his or at least his succesor's. He still had loads of empire - if not (however an anachronism) nation - building to do! And look at the fact that he couldn't go on conquering forever, since the Greeks wouldn't want him to - don't forget that just after he had died, they threw out everything Macedonian related in Athens, and they really wouldn't have done that if not Alexander but his way of governing, and more precisely that he was constantly making war upon other peoples eventhough he had reached his aim, had been a popular one, and one that carried the approval of the Athenian Elite.

But even if he would have gone West: he was bound to go for Italy. But why?
Well, if we look at what Alexander did, I think, we may conclude he basically started in an easy area with lots of supporting Greeks around, and gradually moved into more hostile territories - maybe confident because he knew that initially their newly gained so-called 'freedom' meant that there wouldn't be much resistance in his firstly conquered provinces! And so: he would have started in Italy where he knew loads of supporting Greeks around who would welcome a new hegemoon to secure a peace among their poleis and hold off the increasingly agressive Romans. Then he could have decided to go Southward for precisely the same reasons, or - if he found himself in a war with Rome - to deal with the Romans. - (How much culture would have been rescued if only that had happened) -

But, as said before, this was all really unlikely to happen, even before Alexander had to go back to Babylonia.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Guess the Indians liked to multiply since early times.... :laugh4:

Your **** right we do...:2thumbsup:

[jurchen fury]

Actually, the first target Alexander would have gone after if he had gone west would be Carthago.

IIRC, Arrian records that he wanted to conquer Arabia as well.

Alexander went west probably because, as some have suggested:

1. The Persians were rich in booty

2. Greeks and Persians had long history of interactions, be they wars or cultural exchange

3. Persia was militarily weak at the time, far from what it had been during Cyrus II's reign, during which I doubt Alexander would've been able to fly through like he did during Darius III.

and what I think:

3. Persians and Greeks actually had much more cultural intercourse with each other than the Greeks did with the "West". Their main threat, at least in Greek eyes, seemed to have traditionally been Persia and both Alexander and the Greeks could have a "common cause" in uniting them to fight the Persians, their traditional enemies. You would know more about your traditional enemies than you would with people thosuands of miles away that barely posed a threat to you.

[jurchen fury]

If Alexander dared to go to China though, I think it wouldn't be too difficult to take over, since it was at the time in the Warring States period.

I highly doubt it. He would have trouble even getting there. If he had ventured through Ferghana, subdued the Saka Haomavarga there and went east to the Tarim oases, he would've gotten stuck just trying to take down Kashgar or the such; he has to take down the oases one by one, and there is no fast way through the Tarim, and the Taklamakan is no Gedrosian desert. After that, he would've suffered from numerous relentless raids from nomadic warriors using weapons that were powerful than any nomad warriors Alexander had encountered before. Pretending he survives, he has to face the onslaught of the Yuezhi and various other nomadic tribes in Gansu-Ordos region. Pretending he survives, which is basically impossible, his tired, demoralized, and tiny army would've been easily crushed by a scouting force of Qin warriors.

Pretending that he has no obstacles in his way and pretending that "China" is situated right next to Sogdiana or Ferghana, he would still get a good-ass whooping by Qin, the westernmost "Chinese" state. The Qin army was no declining Achaimenid army nor were they depleted Egyptians, etc. In military tactics and quality-weapons, Qin was no less advanced than that of Alexander. Combined-arms tactics? The very basis, ie the most basic 5-man team of Warring States military organization utilized combined arms. Heavy warriors? Qin has their own version too, but they don't prove particularly useful against Qin crossbowmen. The best Alexander could send forth is probably his 1. Cavalry mercenaries, 2. catapults, 3. ballistas. 1. Should be no problem for Qin, since Qin since the dawn of its history has fought numerous battles and has much experience fighting against cavalry-dominant nomadic Rong warriors, 2. and 3. would be nullified and disadvantaged against much faster-reloading and more numerous crossbows. According to Cotterell, Chinese crossbows had enough penetration power to pierce through Makedonian shield and armour alike. Additionally, Warring States crossbowmen utilized the 3-man drill tactic to keep up the rate of fire. Ferocity? The only way the people of Qin, as Xun Zi, records, could advance in society was through the military and rewards was given "to keep pace with achievements; thus a man who returns from battle with five enemy heads is made the master of five families in his neighborhood". In fact, Alexander's time coincides right after Shang Yang instituted his reforms for Qin, and his reforms made the only 2 things that mattered in Qin society: 1. war, 2. agriculture, and the latter was valued because it supported the former, ie war. Ability of generals? Neither rank, status, nor nobility mattered. What mattered was that you follow the ruler's orders successfully and Qin was willing to employ even people from other states (no we will not just lump them all together as "Chinese", Qin was barely regarded as a Huaxia state early on in its history) and give them the highest command, yet he was demoted just as fast since he failed to follow orders.


Craterus: I agree with your first point. However, I don't think India was unknown territory. After all, in a map of the known world, there was even China, showing that the Greeks had at least heard of the Asian civilisations. There also should have been the Silk Road, and there might have been some tales of the 'Far East'.

The Greeks certainly knew India since northwestern India had been conquered by the Achaimenids. OTOH, the Greeks of Alexander's time did not know "China". Sinai only appears during the time of Strabo and Ptolemy, long after Alexander. The Seres were the Tarim basin inhabitants. Oh, BTW Persia is geographically in "Asia" as well, so the Greeks had contact with "Asian" civilizations.

[Spino]

Characterizing Persia under Darius III as being 'weak' is ludicrous. Despite Darius' shortcomings prior to Alexander's campaigns the Persian empire was the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the western hemisphere, an ancient superpower if you will. Simply because Alexander ran roughshod over Darius' finest doesn't mean just anyone could have done the same.

Although I cannot fathom why Alexander would waste his time conquering the Saudi peninsula (it's not as if anyone else would place such great value on it until the invention of the internal combustion engine... :wink: ) I believe had he directed his attention west towards Carthage & Rome the outcome would have never been in question. Not only would Alexander have had his core of crack Macedonian phalangites & cavalry with him on campaign but also the finest troops and ships from the newly conquered territories of the former Persian empire (many of which were quite grateful to be out from under a Persian boot). In light of this formidable force I believe both Carthage & Rome would have gone down rather quickly. In order to prevent defeat both Carthage & Rome would have been forced into alliances of convenience with one another.

I believe Rome would have gone down much quicker than Carthage. Rome's geopoliticial situation in the 4th and early 3rd centuries was far more precarious than that of Carthage who possessed no major barbarian threats or civilized enemies within marching distance of its borders. At this time Rome was at odds with the non-Latin peoples of the Italian peninsula, especially with their age old enemies the Gauls in the north and the Greek city states in the south & Sicily. The Greek city states would have proved especially problematic as some would be certain to ally themselves with the young Macedonian who brought the Persian empire to its knees. Carthage had the luxury of possessing a first rate navy its mercenary armies would have been really hard pressed to beat Alexander.

[ozz]

Although I cannot fathom why Alexander would waste his time conquering the Saudi peninsula (it's not as if anyone else would place such great value on it until the invention of the internal combustion engine... :wink: ) .

Arabia had some very rich trade routes at the time (incense, spices, etc...), not to mention conquering Arabia would have elliminated any later threats to the heart of Alexander's empire. (Babylon)

[jurchen fury]

Characterizing Persia under Darius III as being 'weak' is ludicrous. Despite Darius' shortcomings prior to Alexander's campaigns the Persian empire was the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the western hemisphere, an ancient superpower if you will. Simply because Alexander ran roughshod over Darius' finest doesn't mean just anyone could have done the same.

The Achaimenids were already in decline during the reign of Artaxerxes [I] when Athens took the offensive to aid the Egyptians in a revolt and also to attack Cyprus - Battle of Salamis. Athens dealt with the Achaimenids on equal terms at the Peace of Callias 448 and gained the coastline of Asia Minor with the Persians gaining nothing but an official end to their past ambitions of invading Greece. The period from the death of Artaxerxes [I] to the [II] was marked by frequent assassinations, 3 emperors in 2 decades. In fact, Hellenic victories over the Persians far predate that of Alexander, by over half a century before his time - Xenophon aiding Cyrus with the famed "Ten Thousand" unit of Greek mercenaries, defeating Artaxerxes [II] at Cunaxa in 401 BC near Babylon, apparently intervening in a Persian civil war, clearly a sign that the Achaimenids were in decline; you can read all about in the Anabasis. In the 360's, the western satrapies revolted. Egypt was lost at the end of the 5th century BC. Artaxerxes [III] who had a little control over things was assassinated, as was his son successor, so the throne ended up at the hands of Darius III, who was invaded by Alexander at the beginning of his reign. It seems that Darius III didn't even seem to have time to consolidate his reign. And an empire full of revolting and scheming satrapies and which had already been defeated by Greeks in the past can be called "the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the western hemisphere" by Alexander's time? I think that is ludicrous as well. Typical boosting and exaggerating Persian strength so as to boost Alexander's achievements.


Although I cannot fathom why Alexander would waste his time conquering the Saudi peninsula (it's not as if anyone else would place such great value on it until the invention of the internal combustion engine... :wink: )

Notice that I said that Arrian stated that he wanted to conquer Arabia and had intentions to do so, and that was not my speculation on any part. And you may obviously find little worth in thinking about Arabia, but that was certainly not what the ancient Alexandrian historians thought of Arabia or of Alexander's fancying a conquest of the region. Arrian in the Anabasis, Book 7, Chapter 20 lists the various reasons why Alexander wanted to conquer the Arabs:

"The fertility of the land was a secret inducement to him to invade it; because he heard that the people obtained cassia from the lakes, and myrrh and frankincense from the trees; that cinnamon was cut from the shrubs, and that the meadows produce spikenard without any cultivation. As to the size of the country, he was informed that the seaboard of Arabia was not less in extent than that of India; that near it lie many islands; that in all parts of the country there were harbours sufficiently commodious to provide anchorage for his fleet, and that it supplied sites for founding cities, which would become flourishing. He was also informed that there were two islands in the sea facing the mouth of the Euphrates, the first of which was not far from the place where the waters of that river are discharged into the sea, being about 120 stades distant from the shore and the river’s mouth. This is the smaller of the two, and was densely covered with every kind of timber. In it was also a temple of Artemis, around which the inhabitants themselves spent their lives. The island was devoted to the use of wild goats and stags, which were allowed to range at large as being dedicated to Artemis. It was unlawful to chase them unless any one wished to offer sacrifice to the goddess; and for this purpose alone it was lawful to chase them."

From the Chinnock translation of the Anabasis of Arrian online: http://websfor.org/alexander/arrian/book7b.asp

[IrishArmenian]

My theory goes like this:
His worst enemy (Persia) lay in the east, yes? And after razing Persiopolis, why stop there? I am trying to say, he might have been distracted (possible ADD) and stayed in the east. The of course, he could have planned to go west, but that was cut short by the whole death-thing.

[Watchman]

Arabia had some very rich trade routes at the time (incense, spices, etc...), not to mention conquering Arabia would have elliminated any later threats to the heart of Alexander's empire. (Babylon)It was also mostly desert, and inhabited by annoyingly warlike tribes. Nobody in the history of ancient Middle East either wanted or could conquer the place - a few important cities on the coastline perhaps, but that's it. Not that they had much reason to either. The trade routes reached their territories anyway, and the occasional raids by the desert nomads were ultimately nothing more than a minor irritant - often better dealt with by simply hiring those same nomads to guard your border against their peers.

The peninsula would not become a threat worth real notice to the empires of the area before Mohammed.

[Spino]

The Achaimenids were already in decline during the reign of Artaxerxes [I] when Athens took the offensive to aid the Egyptians in a revolt and also to attack Cyprus - Battle of Salamis. Athens dealt with the Achaimenids on equal terms at the Peace of Callias 448 and gained the coastline of Asia Minor with the Persians gaining nothing but an official end to their past ambitions of invading Greece. The period from the death of Artaxerxes [I] to the [II] was marked by frequent assassinations, 3 emperors in 2 decades. In fact, Hellenic victories over the Persians far predate that of Alexander, by over half a century before his time - Xenophon aiding Cyrus with the famed "Ten Thousand" unit of Greek mercenaries, defeating Artaxerxes [II] at Cunaxa in 401 BC near Babylon, apparently intervening in a Persian civil war, clearly a sign that the Achaimenids were in decline; you can read all about in the Anabasis. In the 360's, the western satrapies revolted. Egypt was lost at the end of the 5th century BC. Artaxerxes [III] who had a little control over things was assassinated, as was his son successor, so the throne ended up at the hands of Darius III, who was invaded by Alexander at the beginning of his reign. It seems that Darius III didn't even seem to have time to consolidate his reign. And an empire full of revolting and scheming satrapies and which had already been defeated by Greeks in the past can be called "the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the western hemisphere" by Alexander's time? I think that is ludicrous as well. Typical boosting and exaggerating Persian strength so as to boost Alexander's achievements.



Notice that I said that Arrian stated that he wanted to conquer Arabia and had intentions to do so, and that was not my speculation on any part. And you may obviously find little worth in thinking about Arabia, but that was certainly not what the ancient Alexandrian historians thought of Arabia or of Alexander's fancying a conquest of the region. Arrian in the Anabasis, Book 7, Chapter 20 lists the various reasons why Alexander wanted to conquer the Arabs:

"The fertility of the land was a secret inducement to him to invade it; because he heard that the people obtained cassia from the lakes, and myrrh and frankincense from the trees; that cinnamon was cut from the shrubs, and that the meadows produce spikenard without any cultivation. As to the size of the country, he was informed that the seaboard of Arabia was not less in extent than that of India; that near it lie many islands; that in all parts of the country there were harbours sufficiently commodious to provide anchorage for his fleet, and that it supplied sites for founding cities, which would become flourishing. He was also informed that there were two islands in the sea facing the mouth of the Euphrates, the first of which was not far from the place where the waters of that river are discharged into the sea, being about 120 stades distant from the shore and the river’s mouth. This is the smaller of the two, and was densely covered with every kind of timber. In it was also a temple of Artemis, around which the inhabitants themselves spent their lives. The island was devoted to the use of wild goats and stags, which were allowed to range at large as being dedicated to Artemis. It was unlawful to chase them unless any one wished to offer sacrifice to the goddess; and for this purpose alone it was lawful to chase them."

From the Chinnock translation of the Anabasis of Arrian online: http://websfor.org/alexander/arrian/book7b.asp

The Achaemenid dynasty may have been in decline during this period but it was far from collapsing. The Greek victories over Persia prior to Alexander's campaign had merely shown that they could manage to keep the Persian empire out of the west, not conquer them outright. Hellenic victories over an overextended Persia in Asia Minor & the western Mediterranean is one thing, crushing Persia itself is another thing entirely. Please keep in mind this was a task not even the Republican or Imperial might of Rome could manage versus decidedly smaller and more effective Parthian & Persian empires.

At the time nobody expected that a force of 30-40,000 Macedonians, Greeks, allies & mercenaries would drive a stake through the heart of the Persian empire, let alone conquer the surrounding regions and drive onward to India. At best even the most educated or well informed of minds thought that Alexander's campaign would lift Persia's claim on Asia Minor and the western Mediterranean.

I'm sorry but Persia was the wealthiest nation in the western hemisphere, and not by a small amount. Regarding Persia's wealth the amounts Alexander plundered from Persia's treasuries numbered well in excess of one hundred thousand talents, simply an astronomical figure for that time but a reasonable one when you consider the massive territory and numerous populations ruled by Persia (which stretched from Egypt to the Punjab). In order to support your argument please name me one nation in the western hemisphere at that time which could have possessed a comparable tax base & treasury. Macedonia's silver mines were instrumental in allowing Phillip to build the army his son would use to conquer Persia but it hardly made them a world class economic power. Athens' days as a major trading power were long over. Egypt? It was a satrap of Persia. Rome? Not a chance, at least not for another hundred to two hundred years once the Italian peninsula & Sicily were secured and Carthage defeated for good. Carthage? Perhaps, however in spite of its far reaching trade empire Carthage had only a fraction of the land, raw materials and overall tax base as Persia. For all Carthage's wealth it could not overcome Rome's great reserve of manpower. You'd probably have to go all the way to eastern India to the Nanda empire to find a nation with comparable wealth. In addition please name me one nation in the west who could field a comparable army (in size & equipment) to Persia's at that time. Darius III managed to field not one or two but three sizeable armies (the last of which was massive and had no shortage of decent cavalry) to oppose Alexander. Clearly Persia under Darius III did not suffer from cash flow problems and had little trouble raising large numbers of troops.

Even after the overwhelming victories at Granicus & Issus Alexander could have still lost everything at Gaugamela. Even the most conservative (and realistic) estimates for the Persian army at Gaugamela put it at around 200,000+ troops, roughly four to five times what Alexander had in the field. Any other commander in control of that same Macedonian army might have done well but would not have gone nearly as far as Alexander. The Persian empire at that time may have had its troubles but it was no pushover so give Alexander his due. I find it very difficult understanding your position when so many historians of note acknowledge Alexander's conquests as nothing less than spectacular, even after taking into account the propagandadist slant provided by his own historians. There's a damn good reason why history considers Alexander to be one of the greatest generals to walk the Earth.

Thanks to everyone for the information on the possible Arabian campaign. I still maintain expending the effort to take the coastal areas would be a waste of effort & resources. As Watchman stated, the Arabian peninsula was a minor concern to all until the rise of Islam.

[Watchman]

Just to nitpick, but I'm pretty sure the geographical area in question is properly called the Arabian peninsula. Saudi Arabia just happens to be the name of one of the nation-states currently in residence there, not entirely unpredictably named after its royal house.

[Spino]

Just to nitpick, but I'm pretty sure the geographical area in question is properly called the Arabian peninsula. Saudi Arabia just happens to be the name of one of the nation-states currently in residence there, not entirely unpredictably named after its royal house.

I stand corrected! I've got too much modern geopolitical silliness floating around in my head... :dizzy2:

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Magadha was crumbling under its last, old king when Alexander was forced to turn back in India. Why do you think it was so easy for Chandragupta Maurya to take it over just a few years later?

Regardless, his troops saw it as a daunting task. Alexander knew better, but someone had been sowing fear amongst his troops, and had been sowing it deep. That, paired with the fact that they had been on campaign for twenty years, made it a pretty easy choice for them: no more.

edyzmedieval: The Mauryan Empire is indeed estimated to have had such numbers of troops available -- at its height. When Alexander was in India it didn't even exist, so that was not the case at the time. However, India was always a heavily populated region compared to the rest of the world -- there's a reason why it has over a billion inhabitants nowadays. That is why even in periods of internal strife, when many petty kingdoms fought each other, that large armies could be raised, larger than anything European states could hope to wage war with.

I agree compelling with this. One of the other reasons, I think why India would have been difficult to conquer is because they used elephants. Elephants cause a great amount of damage, and showing it in any army will make it very powerful. Alexander would have found that he's facing a contenient, from where war is not common. Peroiods of internal strife. So he would have faced a lot of brave Indians and a huge amount of elephants.

[|Sith|DarthRoach]

Why didn’t Alexander the Great go west?
I have seen a map of his empire and it seems to be a bit sporadic.
It is long, thin and it has gaps in places where it looks like he just ignored them, for example Bithynia and Epirus and there’s a long thin strip near Saka. And to go back to my earlier question Why didn’t he go west, or did he just die before he had the chance and why is it mostly desert.
The map I looked at
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/MacedonEmpire.jpg

He invaded the Achaemenid empire, and only ever conquered those provinces which submitted to him or he managed to subdue. Nothing more, nothing less - he ended up ruling a bit less than 2/3 of the Persian empire.

[Brandy Blue]

. Elephants cause a great amount of damage, and showing it in any army will make it very powerful.

Alexader faced war elephants at the battle of Gaugamela, where they had no significant impact. I'm not sure that elephants would have been any more effective against Alexander's army in India.

[Hamata]

After some battles in india. he couldent go west bescause he did not want to risk an rebellion of his army so they headed home like the troops wanted too

[johnhughthom]

For some reason, I think the Indian style of Elephant warfare was rather different from the Persian kind. Not 100% sure though. You have to Remember that India was large and prosperous enough for all of its little Kingdoms and nations were large enough to have their own distinct styles of warfare as well. No reason at all to think that he would have faced anything remotely similar to what he had faced before.

I think the difference was more the fact that Indian armies would have had more experience in using elephants in warfare, their tactics would have been based around the use of elephants. Wheareas for the Achaemenids the elephant was more of a status symbol, "look at me, I'm rich and powerful, that's why I have some elephants!" Kind of like the difference between fighting a genuine US armour brigade and an infantry brigade with some tanks stuck in for prestige.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Alexader faced war elephants at the battle of Gaugamela, where they had no significant impact. I'm not sure that elephants would have been any more effective against Alexander's army in India.

Are you quite sure on this? Elephants in any army have made a good impact and have been quite useful. In Canne? Hannibal used these to his advantage. I'm not sure I agree with you on ''no significany impact ''.

[Kagemusha]

Alexander faced considerable amount of Elephants at battle of Hydaspes river at India, but won the battle any way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hydaspes

[Arjos]

Hannibal used these to his advantage.

Hold the presses, new headline: "Hannibal had elephants at Cannae!"

But seriously, only a few survived the crossing of the Alps, there were maybe two at Trebia, where they panicked...
One died and the other became very sickly iirc...
In overall Hannibal managed to get them to Cisalpine Gaul, but they had basically no part whatsoever in his campaign in Italy...


For some reason, I think the Indian style of Elephant warfare was rather different from the Persian kind.

They were imported from India, and the mahouts would've been indian aswell...
But, yes, there weren't as many as one would face in India...

What Alexander and his army found very hard to cope with, rather than the elephants, was the local population extremely independent...

[johnhughthom]

Hold the presses, new headline: "Hannibal had elephants at Cannae!"

But seriously, only a few survived the crossing of the Alps, there were maybe two at Trebia, where they panicked...
One died and the other became very sickly iirc...
In overall Hannibal managed to get them to Cisalpine Gaul, but they had basically no part whatsoever in his campaign in Italy...

Indeed Hannibal's most famous use of elephants was at Zama, where their impact was minimal.

[Brandy Blue]

Are you quite sure on this? Elephants in any army have made a good impact and have been quite useful. In Canne? Hannibal used these to his advantage. I'm not sure I agree with you on ''no significany impact ''.

I think I've read the same thing elsewhere, but here is the wiki account:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaugamela

Sure Darius had only 15 elephants, but if they were such mighty battle tanks you would expect them to accomplish something. I don't know, maybe with better tactics or more elephants he might have got results.

Pyrrhus used elephants sucessfully at the Herclea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Heraclea

But even at Heraclea, the elephants were useful for spreading panic among the Romans (who had never encountered such huge monsters). They don't seem to have inflicted heavy casulties.

I'm not saying that war elephants were useless. If they were, the Indians would not have used them. However, its interesting that the Romans did not use elephants, even after they conquered a large chunk of North Africa and so had access to them. The advantage of war elephants could not have been too great or the Romans would surely have not neglected them.

[CBR]

However, its interesting that the Romans did not use elephants, even after they conquered a large chunk of North Africa and so had access to them.
*cough* Cynoscephalae, *cough* Pydna

But yes, elephants do seem to have worked best when they faced a foe who was not used to them.

[Arjos]

The advantage of war elephants could not have been too great or the Romans would surely have not neglected them.

Just on top of my head: Pydna, 153 BC uprisings in Hispania and Thapsus...
Elephants had their pros and cons, if logistics allowed it, a general could decide whether or not to deploy them...

[Brandy Blue]

Ok I take that back about the Romans not using elephants. Nice to learn something new about the Roman army.