Why didn’t Alexander the Great go west?

**lars573** · 05-05-2006, 19:33

Originally Posted by 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.

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

**Steppe Merc** · 05-06-2006, 21:47

Originally Posted by lars573

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** · 05-07-2006, 04:13

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

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.

**Geoffrey S** · 05-07-2006, 09:01

Originally Posted by lars573

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** · 05-07-2006, 10:27

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** · 05-07-2006, 17:17

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** · 05-07-2006, 22:09

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.

**Reenk Roink** · 05-07-2006, 04:30

Originally Posted by lars573

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.