View Full Version : Alexanders choice of conquest.
Why did Alexander go east with his army? Why not west into italy? Or north into... er whatever's north?
blitzkrieg80
10-31-2007, 06:40
Alexander did fight in the North (maybe not far North, but North for them ~;))
His father had already planned an invasion of persia.
pseudocaesar
10-31-2007, 07:27
It was a cultural thing, the Greeks have always hated the Persians, and Alexanders pretence of his invasion was the liberation of Ionian Greeks.
Quintus Aurelius
10-31-2007, 09:11
and the Persians were very rich
Weather was nicer in the east.
different_13
10-31-2007, 12:14
He intended to go West after conquering Persia and India (well, and Saudi-Arabia).
russia almighty
10-31-2007, 13:46
Funny I can see him getting distracted and taking out Ethiopia and Nubia while he was at it .
macsen rufus
10-31-2007, 13:56
He went east because that's where the enemy were ~D
Detlef was right that Philip had already planned the expedition, Alexander just inherited it. He called it a "Pan-Hellenic Crusade" - the motivations were many and varied - partly to establish the idea that Macedonians were Greeks themselves (not just some semi-barbarous northern overlords), partly to strengthen their position as semi-barbarous overlords ~D, partly to liberate (in Greek this seems to have the same meaning as "subjugate" :beam: ) the Ionian Greeks, partly to whup the Persians in retaliation for all of their invasions, partly for new (rich!) territories.
Anything else? Ermm, well.... "because it's there", I guess :laugh4:
I'm sure he would have gone in other directions too, if he'd made it beyond the ripe old age of 32.
Tellos Athenaios
10-31-2007, 14:40
Hmm. For me the statement "Greeks have always hated the Persians" is a bit too strong stuff.
It's about the same as saying "The Europeans have always hated the Americans" => Perhaps a lot (but certainly not all) dislike or envy the state called USA - but it's not something like hatred. More like "We do business with them, and they are marvellous trading partners, and we love their new inventions - but that's as cosy as it gets." Same for them Greeks & Persians.
Anyhow: Alexander knew opportunity when he saw it; just like Caesar did. He knew the Persian empire was nothing like the mighty mover & shaker it had been a few hundred years earlier - but it still did mean the richest dominions of all of the known world. Or at least - a quick way to make his treasury more liquid. He knew what the Persian empire "looked" like; his father had been conducting diplomacy with the Persians for years - so he knew how to mount a succesful campaign.
Furthermore he had an excuse for war, as has been pointed out above -- and he enjoyed being in command of an army. (And unlike Italy you can really get to enjoy your army in the Persian empire - it's got a bit more room for conquest. - If only because there's more to pay your soldiers with.)
EDIT: Removed one mistaken word from a sentence which could cause a lot of confusement. :oops:
The reasons differ depending on who you talk to...
1) Homeric glory, he was trying to immortalize himself through deeds, hence the great risks he took
2) Religious crusade, in retaliation for the desecration of Greek holy places during the Persian wars
3) Desire to see the eastern world, driven by cursiosity instilled in him by his time with Aristotle
4) He was incredibly in debt and needed to money, war equals money, especially the thousands of talents of gold in the Persian coffers
5) He truly believed he was devine, and repeatedly strived to establish himself as a god. Only by conquering the Persians could he accomplish a deed worthy of divinity
Some historians believe that as he was more and more successful, his motives changed as well. Tons of great readings out there with all kinds of different opinions.
QwertyMIDX
10-31-2007, 14:59
7) Persia was the only game in town. It was the heart of the world at the time (something greco-centric classics tends to forget). Basically the east was where the action was, so east he went.
The Persian Cataphract
10-31-2007, 16:27
I discredit the excuse of Greeks taking revenge at the Persians in modern academic application; It may have been a contemporary Hellenistic perception of the affairs, however tracing the origins of Greek-Iranian conflicts will take us way back to the age of the tetrarchy, where the Greek-influenced Mermnad dynasty of Lydia fought against the Medean empire. It's very easy to trivialize the events and I've seen cases of both sides do it. It's annoying to see people go all "Well, Alexander was just taking vengeance on the Persian sack of the evacuated Athens by almost wiping out Persepolis from the map" and on the other hand see "Well, they call the Persians invaders, but last time I checked the Ionians burned the city of Sardis to the ground probably causing tens of thousands of dead people, prolly thinking the Persians were going to sit with their thumbs up their asses". Don't. I've heard it all, seen it all, and I'm never in the mood for rehearsal.
Bear in mind that this is a conflict that has spanned for more than a thousand years. It didn't start with the Persian Wars, and it certainly didn't end with Alexander's conquest of Persia. These are popular notions and I've never been a fan of the masses. We are past the age of elementary school history, gentlemen. The Alexander mystique has bedazzled scholars for years, and very briefly paraphrased, it's the story of a man who ushered the world into a new age. In this aspect, Alexander is not unique; Cyrus The Great himself single-handedly put a halt to the age of the tetrarchy. What makes Alexander unique is that through the classics we have finally established the romantic image of a young, passionate general all the more eager to go as far as the end of the world only to have a bitter-sweet twist to it with his peculiar maturing and his early death, as if his new-found possessions had corrupted him. Cyrus likewise has a similar story, but an entirely different impression revolves around the character.
Likewise, the glory of the small and few conquering a colossus also has a clear effect on popular perception. Had Alexander gone west or north to subdue city-states of little popular renown and small tribes, then Alexander's achievements would not have been as appraised as Alexander's keen tactics at Gaugamela. Sometimes I sense a mixed message from popular opinion of Alexander's achievements; Many think that he was a great military leader because he lead a few well-equipped men against a horde, lead incompetently by the Persians. Others, like myself appreciate the greatness of his military understanding, because he earned it. I'm not going to get into historical details, but anyone who has analyzed the battle of Gaugamela in depth, phase by phase, will surely come to realize that had not Alexander been bold in his strategy, he would surely have lost. It ultimately comes down to priorities; Alexander, had nothing to lose. Darius had everything at stake.
Tellos Athenaios
10-31-2007, 16:40
In fact in "Eastern" oral tradition the figure of "Irksander" plays a very important part, mostly as a sort of demon who comes to punish people who've been bad. In Indonesia Irksander has a son - and that character is based on the historical figure Coen. (He's infamous for the massacre on the Banda islands he ordered.)
That's the other perspective so to speak.
Horst Nordfink
10-31-2007, 17:03
Why not west into italy? Or north into... er whatever's north?
Because there was sod all there worth going for!!
Erik Bloodaxe
10-31-2007, 20:40
There is no doubt that Alexander the great, son of Zeus himself, wouldn't be [I]that [/I ]great without the preparations made by his father, Philip. About why he chooses the Persian Empire, well, what I would say is that it was the only obviously threat, this was where the challenges and riches could be found. His father was about to invade the Persians, maybe he got his father killed so the awaiting glory would be his? Who knows? It had always been the Greek dream to go East, though the Macedonians were not Greeks, but they tried. I guess this dream had been adopted by them as well. There were many reasons, I'm not sure if there exist a 100% correct answer.
Cheers. :beam:
russia almighty
10-31-2007, 22:48
Yeah one thing he had was he was bold . He threw out the military maxim of numerical superiority which was pretty stupid regardless of how you look at it . I think it would be interesting to see how say Gaugamela went if he had man for man the same #'s as the Persians.
There is no doubt that Alexander the great, son of Zeus himself, wouldn't be [I]that [/I ]great without the preparations made by his father, Philip. About why he chooses the Persian Empire, well, what I would say is that it was the only obviously threat, this was where the challenges and riches could be found. His father was about to invade the Persians, maybe he got his father killed so the awaiting glory would be his? Who knows? It had always been the Greek dream to go East, though the Macedonians were not Greeks, but they tried. I guess this dream had been adopted by them as well. There were many reasons, I'm not sure if there exist a 100% correct answer.
Cheers. :beam:
I'd say they were Greeks.
Intranetusa
10-31-2007, 23:00
It was a cultural thing, the Greeks have always hated the Persians, and Alexanders pretence of his invasion was the liberation of Ionian Greeks.
Greeks have always respected the Persian culture and civilization. They never "hated" the Persians.
keravnos
10-31-2007, 23:04
First of all people do not remember that the "west" at the time was occupied- another guy had invaded there already. Alexandros of Epeiros had gone there and fought many winning battles until being assasinated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_of_Epirus
When Alexandros of Makedonia started out, his uncle was already fighting in Italia.
But I guess people don't know that Epeiros didn't start with Pyrrhos, nor did it end with him.:laugh4:
Second, from all I have read of Alexander, he seems to me to have more of a desire for glory, wonderlust extreme, not to mention the money was good... :laugh4: Now, I fully blame him for succumbing to the whims of an Athenian whore when she asked him to burn Persepolis down, but that is another story.
Third, QwertyMIDX is right, Persia WAS THE CENTER OF THE WORLD AT THE TIME. Imagine Alexandros heading west, kicking the crap out of all the Italic penninsula, Gaul and reaching "Kassitereides nesous"=islands of tin, aka Brittain. Would he hope to have earned a percentile of the total loot, people, territory and fame he did when invading Asia? I guess not.
Fourth, the story of 12.000 hoplites (which were cut down to 10.000 so that it would fit the "myrioi"=10.000 title better) going up until the Persian capital then retreating under constant harassment, but basically 8.000 of them made it back. That did prove that it was feasible.
Fifth, and let's not be afraid of words, THIS was the greek "Eastern Expansion". Russians expanded to Siberia, Greeks expanded to the East, Messopotamia, Persia, Baktria. Aristoteles hoped that a common enemy would unite the Greeks. So long as Alexandros was alive this was possible. Aristoteles had also written in his Meteorologika, " The earth is quite small and round" thus Aristoteles wrote "you can get to whatever point in the world you want whether you start from the east or from the west". It is unknown whether this has had an effect on Alexander, still it did take the 14th century and Thomas Akinates to translate it into Latin, so the rest of the world would know. Overpopulation constantly led to conflict, which was in the eyes of many of the greeks then and now, a civil war. Only way out, a common enemy, and that common enemy was the Persians.
Sixth, abolish all pre-concepts of "civilized greeks" conquering "unwashed beardmen". In all intents and purposes, Persia was much more civilized then Greece. The lush lifestyle of the Persian elite and those residing in the royal palaces were reported by Xenophon in "Kyrou paideia" brings in mind the Roman era of the first two centuries AD. In this case, looting slashing and burning was the norm rather than the exception. And the worst part of it is that it wasn't Alexandros who ordered all those massacres, but his allies holding a grudge.
Seventh, blind luck. So many others before him or after him tried to do the same but wound up killed. Looking at Gaugamela, I really can think of 10 ways he could be defeated, EASILY.
Megas Methuselah
10-31-2007, 23:06
Funny I can see him getting distracted and taking out Ethiopia and Nubia while he was at it .
lol! Based on some books I've read, I don't find this hard to imagine at all!
:beam:
He went east because that's where the enemy were
"March to the sound of the guns!"
:wink2:
the persians were to the greeks... as the kelts were to the romans.
Erik Bloodaxe
10-31-2007, 23:18
I'd say they were Greeks.
Why do you think so? please explain:beam:
They were not considered as Greeks, by the Greeks. I also remember reading somewhere that they were not Greeks ethnically either. (If that made any sense, English is not my mother tongue sry>.<)
Bootsiuv
10-31-2007, 23:25
It made sense erik.
Anyways, weren't the macedonians thought to be of the same descent of the 'dorian' greeks who overthrew mycanaean (sp) culture c. 1200 BC i.e. the athenians and makedons would have shared some blood ties....as the athenians were 'barbarians' from the north a 1000 years prior.
Just curious....
Megas Methuselah
10-31-2007, 23:43
I get so easily confused by all those northern barbarian migrations/invasions stuff...
:worried:
keravnos
10-31-2007, 23:49
All that will be explained in the "WIP" Makedonian history. At one time or another ALL of Greeks passed through Makedonia, to subdue the Pelasgoi living in Mainland Greece from Thessaly and under.
Basically, Hercules son's were kicked out of Peloponese, and got themselves a kingdom in Makedonia.
It is amazing the length of effort ancient Greeks went through to justify their legendary ties. Pyrrhos was 23 generations down the line from Achilles. Full family history, and they believed that too!
Anyways, weren't the macedonians thought to be of the same descent of the 'dorian' greeks who overthrew mycanaean (sp) culture c. 1200 BC i.e. the athenians and makedons would have shared some blood ties....as the athenians were 'barbarians' from the north a 1000 years prior.
Just curious....
similar Doric dialect, far different history. On the other hand the athenians spoke the Attic dialect which is part of the Ionic tradition, and were to some extent a very mixed bag, but overall more related to the Achaeans and some non-greek speakers. At least five kinds of classical greeks.
Pelasgian greeks
Non- greek-greeks (this group may in fact represent several discrete ethnos, within itself?)
Dorian greeks ...crete, peloponnesus
Including northwest Greece and Macedonia
Thessalian-Aeolic greeks
Ionic-Attic greeks
Arkadian greeks
Arcado-cypriot greeks
After MA we have development of a common greek ethnos and language, koine, which slowly replaced other dialects, yet i think some form of dorian greek is still used?
The strange thing is... if i remember right, greek as a language is considered closely related to Indo-Iranian types.
Pharnakes
11-01-2007, 00:10
It is amazing the length of effort ancient Greeks went through to justify their legendary ties. Pyrrhos was 23 generations down the line from Achilles. Full family history, and they believed that too!
Prehaps its true?:egypt:
I get so easily confused by all those northern barbarian migrations/invasions stuff...
:worried:
Let's see.
Before 1800bC in what is now mainland Greece, Aegean islands and western Anatolia, there are several civilisations with many similarities. The Greeks called them with one name Pelasgoi, even though they probably were different people.
Around 1800bC the first Greeks arrive. Mainland Greece was very peaceful before that, having many unfortified settlements but the new invaders bring chaos. Fortified settlements are built everywhere but eventually the Greeks win and the Mycenaean civilisation flourishes around 1600bC.
The Mycenaeans are very warlike fighting amongst themselves and anyone, they learn quickly the art of sailing and become pirates, conquering the Aegean and eventually the Minoan empire which at older times had them paying tribute (Thiseas' legends and Minotaur). After that they attack Anatolia too, and at some point Troy but eventually due to the collapse of the Eastern markets (due to Sea People) and the wars they fall to decline and eventually defeated by the Dorians, another larger but more barbaric Greek tribe that lived in Macedonia and north.
Under their attacks, many Mycenaeans migrate to the East (Ionians, Aitolians) and Dorians conquer most of mainland Greece. Some Doric tribes remain north and they are the ancestors of Macedonians.
The Greek Dark ages come, a chaotic era where Doric tribes invade everywhere, Ionians and Aitolians (Mycenaeans actually) try to repel them or flee to the east, people moving here and there. Finally everybody settles, cities are built and become independent (something that started in the East with the Ionian cities), kings fall and oligarchies are created.
Congratulations the Greeks relearn how to write and the first Olympics take place. The Archaic period begins, and Greece is as we know it in the more famous classical period. Hoplites are created etc etc.
Very off topic but just helping.
artavazd
11-02-2007, 01:47
The strange thing is... if i remember right, greek as a language is considered closely related to Indo-Iranian types.
Closet language to Greek is Armenian. These two languages were the last to seperate from eachother in the indo-european language family roughly about 6,000 years ago. The missing link between Greeks and Armenians are the Phrygians a people who do not exist anymore :shame:
Very off topic but just helping.
you might have glossed over the Pelasgian-Etruscan/Tusci-Roman connection and thera/Santorini?
1. it wasn't Alexander's choice, he completed Phillip's planned invasion of Asia Minor, and it went better than expected at Granicus, so he kept going.
I feel the notion of revenge for the Persian invasion was a nice motivator and pretext to keep Greek allies onside. It was a fairly unrealistic goal, but if it gave Macedon and her allies enough steam to take Asia minor, well and good. Phillip was a very pragmatic and realistic leader, for all his ability and ambition I don't think he was setting out to replace teh great King, just push him back.
Alexander was a nutjob though, possibly believed all the hype and certainly acted like it was true.
2. After Issus it became apparent that the western half of the Persian Empire (basically the Mediterranean littoral) was Alexander'ss for the taking, so he took it. That secured, the rest of Persia's dominions were available, at the price of a battle: Gaugemela.
3. After Gaugemela he sacked Persepolis which was Operation Persian Revenge's "mission accomplished" moment. Alexander's new mission became "re-found the Persian Empire".
Persia's Empire falls into two halves in my mind: the wealthy provinces of the west (Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt, Lydia) with alien locals ruled by Persian satraps and the Arian or Iranian east, peoples with more in common with persia and less apt to conquest by non-Iranians. I think the Western Provinces had bene fought over and pacified multiple times and knew how to bend the knee, but less subjegated (or civilised?) folk made a better fist of resistance (eg Hellas, Iran).
Alexander fought three major battles and some sieges in the Western Persian Empire, but in the East he had to skirmish and fight and siege his way from Parthia to India.
So half the empire fell in 3 years, and the other half took seven years, and fratured and revolted to Iranian rule many times under the Macedonians.
I feel italy Spain and the rest of Euriope were of the same type of cultures, unpacified, hard to unite (even for a local), hard to hold onto once conquered. Thrace fell from macedonian hands faster than Egypt or any of theuir Eastern conquests.
Likewise the Romans sprinkled Italy with their blood for 300 or more years to bring it to heel (perhaps the Social War being the true pacification), Spain took 200 years of plodding slaughter. Gaul resisted conquest for a long time although perhaps they softened themselves to rule ("The Time of Soldiers"): certanly the Germans did not, despite being poorer and less united.
dominique
11-02-2007, 14:12
By 330, Rome had 10 legions, Camilian style and was allied to Carthage. The Samnites were still packing a fight, the Padana Gauls were in their golden years. And there's the Marsi and the dozen other hill tribes that haunted the Italian peninsula.
I will tell something big, here.
Alexander, if he had gone in Italia, would have been beaten. Utterly.
Think about it.
Look at Alexander's roster at the Granicus;
20,000 peltasts
22,000 hoplites
5,000 cavalry
Do you really think the Makedonians could have won over 10 legions + allies + good commanders that the romans could field, in a campaign over VERY hostile territory, with no supplies and reinforcement coming? (I think the Rhodians would have chocked before fighting the first sea power of the Western Mediterranean, so Carthage would have been able to blockade every port between Massalia and Taras)
It would have been a hell of a war. And woe to the victors, because the Gauls would have moved south afterward.
Whoah!
That's a Harry Turtledove story for sure.
you might have glossed over the Pelasgian-Etruscan/Tusci-Roman connection and thera/Santorini?
:sweatdrop: I am no historian and I guess he was asking only about Greek prehistoric migrations....
About Santorini I am under the impression that it was a Minoan colony.
:sweatdrop: thera a Minoan colony.
Thera and the big-bang was why the Achaeans came to dominate the north west Mediterranean. Pelasgian-Etruscan/Tusci-Roman connection, Rome sees Greeks, Rome takes out Greeks, Rome becomes Greek? BTW, Mycenaean is the archaeological construct and Achaean referrers to the late bronze age proto-Greek ethnos as a catchall.
Centurio Nixalsverdrus
11-03-2007, 19:15
Do you really think the Makedonians could have won over 10 legions + allies + good commanders that the romans could field, in a campaign over VERY hostile territory, with no supplies and reinforcement coming? (I think the Rhodians would have chocked before fighting the first sea power of the Western Mediterranean, so Carthage would have been able to blockade every port between Massalia and Taras)
It would have been a hell of a war. And woe to the victors, because the Gauls would have moved south afterward.
Alexander was victorious in Thrace, why not in nicer territory like Italy? And so he was at every single place from Illyria to the Hindu Kush. I don't think the Romans would have been insurmountable for him. Actually the Samnites would have been very eager to help Alexandros. And why should the Gauls be more dangerous to Alexander than to Rome?
In my opinion the reason Alexander moved east was that the Persian Empire was already set by his father as military target. They were the dominant empire of the time, but already too weak. They have tried to subdue Greece numerous times but often failed. And they have become weaker in the course of time, not stronger. They were a ripe fruit. Needless to say the East was by far the richest territory.
Emperor Burakuku
11-04-2007, 05:38
By 330, Rome had 10 legions, Camilian style and was allied to Carthage. The Samnites were still packing a fight, the Padana Gauls were in their golden years. And there's the Marsi and the dozen other hill tribes that haunted the Italian peninsula.
I will tell something big, here.
Alexander, if he had gone in Italia, would have been beaten. Utterly.
Think about it.
Look at Alexander's roster at the Granicus;
20,000 peltasts
22,000 hoplites
5,000 cavalry
Do you really think the Makedonians could have won over 10 legions + allies + good commanders that the romans could field, in a campaign over VERY hostile territory, with no supplies and reinforcement coming? (I think the Rhodians would have chocked before fighting the first sea power of the Western Mediterranean, so Carthage would have been able to blockade every port between Massalia and Taras)
It would have been a hell of a war. And woe to the victors, because the Gauls would have moved south afterward.
Whoah!
That's a Harry Turtledove story for sure.
During the 2nd Punic War romans raised 20 legions from 218 B.C to 216 B.C (216 B.C - Battle of Cannae). What does that tell you? Not to mention that the first encounters of romans with the phalanx tactics did not end so well for the romans. All I am saying is that if Alexander went west... But this is not the right thread for this matter.
P.S Romans are still my favourites is just that I have the impression that the quality of their legions was higher than the quality of their generals (with a few exceptions).
Mouzafphaerre
11-04-2007, 06:38
The strange thing is... if i remember right, greek as a language is considered closely related to Indo-Iranian types.
Closet language to Greek is Armenian. These two languages were the last to seperate from eachother in the indo-european language family roughly about 6,000 years ago. The missing link between Greeks and Armenians are the Phrygians a people who do not exist anymore :shame:
.
Still both, especially the ancient regarding Greek, are pretty close to Iranic languages, Latin notwithstanding.
.
.
Still both, especially the ancient regarding Greek, are pretty close to Iranic languages, Latin notwithstanding.
.
Latin falls more with the Italic, Kelt, and Balt languages. The Nordic languages are even farther away. Not sure where the slavic ones come down?
Tellos Athenaios
11-04-2007, 15:28
.
Still both, especially the ancient regarding Greek, are pretty close to Iranic languages, Latin notwithstanding.
.
Ancient Greek, which is supposedly of the Indo-Euorpean stock, is still very well preserved in modern Greek. So it's not surprising if we find a lot of similarities between the many old components of Greek and other modern languages.
What's more is the fact that throughout its entire history Greece has been very much East-orientated. This undoubtly has led to closer ties with the Eastern languages and so we shouldn't be really surprised to find that Iranic languages and the modern Greek have something in common.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.