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/wikiped...edonEmpire.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/wikiped...edonEmpire.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.