What Alexander lived to be 80 years old?
My grandpa.
>>1192663
If?
>>1192726
Wopps
Yes, it should read:
>What if Alexander lived to be 80 years old?
>>1192663
I want to cum on that statue's stomach.
>>1192663
He probably would have gotten assassinated at the age of 80.
>>1192663
He would have been alive to have been btfo by the Mauryans and this meme of him being the greatest general alive could be put to rest.
>>1194302
>battles with a million combined combatants
>640,000 soldiers mobilized under a singer banner on a single battlefield
wtf, no way those numbers are accurate. The height of the Roman Empire never even managed those numbers under a single commander.
>>1194330
> The height of the Roman Empire never even managed those numbers under a single commander.
*The Roman army never mobilized those numbers IN THE ENTIRE EMPIRE.*
The absolute peak men at arms in the Roman Empire was around 400,000-600,000.
>>1192663
Random question: were the satrapies all Macedonian or were some picked from the local population?
>>1194302
>poo in loos outnumber enemy 3 to 1
>casualty rate is only half that of the enemy
Mediocre
>>1194330
The geography of the regions affect how many soldiers you can deploy and how large the armies can be. This is true even today with India having the 3rd largest army.
India and China have always had historically larger battles thanks to better fertility in the region combined with high-yield rice crops which led to higher populations.
Fun fact: At the end of the war the Mauryans gifted the Selecuids 500 War Elephants as an act of goodwill, a mere trifle to the vast number of War Elephants they possessed. This gave the Seleucids the upper hand in a decisive battle just two years later by cornering enemy infantry positions.
>>1194393
Dude don't bother.
People here don't know jack about history. They are just here to spout memes and be /pol/-lite and talk about things they already think they are experts in.
>>1194393
It still seems like an extraordinary number of troops to field in 300BC. How many people lived in that kingdom? Were all men conscripted into the army? How did the feed, pay & train all those men?
The entire Roman Empire at its height with anywhere from 60-120 million people could barely afford to bring that many men into the field across the entire expanse of the empire.
>>1194330
>>1194350
>>1194393
>battles with a million combined combatants
>640,000 soldiers mobilized under a singer banner on a single battlefield
>>1194302
Doesn't say that. It says Seleucid-Mauryan WAR. Why are you arguing about whether it's realistic for those forces to have met on one battlefield at one time when that's not even what the source claims?
>>1194455
Anywhere from 100-140 Million people at that time in 300BC. Indus River Valley is one of the most fertile region on the planet after the Ganges Plain, so the supply chains need not have been that long. Supply chains were the biggest constraint on historical armies since mass refrigeration didn't begin until the late 1800s and most stuff just went bad.
There were actually LESS people in 1600s era India than in 300BC. That was how far society regressed after the Mughal invasions and rule. Although the Muslim world arguably had it even worse after the Mongols invaded.
>>1194542
>Why are you arguing about whether it's realistic for those forces to have met on one battlefield at one time
I never claimed that it was one large battlefield? Learn to read.
>>1194556
>I never claimed that it was one large battlefield
The person you were responding to with your second post did. I didn't ask "Why are you claiming this?", I asked "Why are you arguing about it?". You learn to read.
>>1194302
>sure he bulldozed his way through the whole of Persia and deep into India, but he would be beat this time, you'll see!
>>1194302
Alexander would have laid waste to the Mauryans just like every other people that resisted him
>>1194565
>Quote multiple posts saying different things
>Not just quoting the single post
First off that was stupid.
Secondly, the actual quote was:
>640,000 soldiers mobilized under a singer banner on a single battlefield
This depends on your definition of the word 'battlefield', a single large battlefield could encompass a vast plane with multiple skirmishes and conflicts, although the term 'Theater of War' would be more appropriate. A similar confusion is often when discussing more contemporary 'Battles' like Kursk. So
>I didn't ask "Why are you claiming this?", I asked "Why are you arguing about it?"
Because you argue about claims and not the other way around.
Either way you are arguing semantics which is the Bane of Academia, and the last sanctuary of the ignorant. Might as well argue about the use of comic sans on physics power-points.
>>1194570
The most decisive battles Alexander fought against Persia were ones in which he had the numbers to be a formidable opponent to the Persians, if not already had the numbers to absolutely crush their forces.
The manpower and supply chains Persia could muster were absolutely peanuts compared to what India would be able to.
>Deep into India
Not so fast.
>>1194548
>Anywhere from 100-140 Million people at that time in 300BC
Wow, I had no idea. That's incredible.
>>1194302
Considering he beat them a number of times with similar odds, I think you're wrong.
>>1194598
Well he was clearly able to get that far
>implying that's not deep into India
The Indus Valley had the highest population density of the whole subcontinent. It's pretty much the key to India, so yes, he had conquered a significant portion.
>>1194594
>Either way you are arguing semantics
Except I wasn't. I wasn't commenting on your point, of the point of the other poster. I was asking why you guys were arguing back and forth, when the answer was in your first post. I typed exactly what I meant. Once again, the person saying that others need to learn to read isn't doing a great job himself.
>>1194610
Yes, and the thing about mass-conquering is after a certain point it starts to get exponentially more difficult.
>The Indus Valley had the highest population density of the whole subcontinent. It's pretty much the key to India, so yes, he had conquered a significant portion.
It's like 2 foot into India and he barely even crossed the Indus, it would be like conquering a bit of Bangladesh today and calling that deep into India because it's so densely populated.
Speaking of which by this point in time the centre of Indian civilization had long shifted east from the Indus to the Ganges. Think over a thousand years long.
Had people been born and died under his reign, he would be elevated to godhood. He probably would hold the border at the Himalayas for a while, while he proceeded to BTFO of the arabs and most likely anyone else he wanted to conquer. Had he taken india (which would have been a feat, probably 20 years of constant warfare, but he's Alexander, he would have gone for it even if it wasn't practical) there would be nothing stopping him. At that point China would probably want him to start interfering in their politics because >warring states.
When they hear of a man from the edge of the world who united every civilization they've ever heard of or traded with, someone is going to try to be his friend to get an edge on the other states. With his troop numbers, utterly foreign tactics, and a politically fragmented China, Alexander *could* have taken them over. At that point, it's over. If someone did that, they fucking *deserve* the status of godhood. Either way, if he lived he probably would have united all indo-european civilizations under one state, and they would have realized they had so much crap in common (language, gods, etc.) that the exchange of goods/ideas would have probably started a renaissance right then and there.
>>1194609
Mauryans weren't a thing back when Alexander is alive. India was a place of multiple kingdoms each with their unique culture.
Chandragupta Maurya then arose and conquered the whole of Northern India, uniting it in one vast empire.
And remember: Alexander was nearly beaten by King Poros, who was *only* one Raj of a relatively regular ass Raj called the Paurava Raj. Now imagine multiple Raj's resources united under Chandragupta Maurya.
>>1194623
Porous got fucking trashed m8, it was only a close battle because Alexander's entire army had to cross a river to get to the battle
>>1194620
India begins far west of the Indus. There were plenty of people living in this region and Alexander did successfully conquer them despite being a Persia and a half away from where he had begun his campaigns. Besides, if your point before was that Alexander only conquered his empire due to them not being able to field mass numbers of troops, then the point remains the same against the Maurya. Within the Indus River Valley logistics are simple, yes, but the terrain between the Indus and the Ganges is not so much. It's easy to speculate that Alexander, even against the Maurya, could have conquered the whole of central India before maybe reaching his limit somewhere near the Chota Nagpur Plateau, where the Indians could face him with a fiercer resistance.
>>1194610
>The Indus Valley had the highest population density of the whole subcontinent
This wasn't 3000BC, it was 300BC. The Heart of Indian Civilization moves inwards over time. The Great Civilization of this time were all centered around the Ganges and South and Central India.
>>1194639
Porous was a nobody. Literally a 'Hill King'. A thousand Chieftans like him were defeated then absorbed by Mauryans.
>>1194570
>>1194591
Mauryans already defeated the Satraps using Alexander's tactics and his own Generals. The only thing they were missing was the Man himself. It is not like they forgot all their training and tactics immediately after he died.
If the mere presence of Alexander himself would have turned the War in the favor of his forces. Then yes, he would have been a 'God'.
>>1194655
>Persia
Speaking of that too you'd be wise to notice that Alexander's spread into India is only very marginally deeper than the Achaemenids that he originally conquered. Which should also give some insight into how much of India can be feasibly conquered given that Alexander was essentially just using Achaemenid land.
In any event I must mention that I'm not the original guy, I just wanted to make it known that Alexander is not god and couldn't have just crushed the entire planet had he not died.
>>1194672
>the mere presence of Alexander himself would have turned the War in the favor of his forces
None of Alexander's generals were Alexander. None of them commanded the hysterical love and attachment he did. So yes, he would have found a way to win, every time. Keep in mind the soldiers were days away from a mutiny before the battle with Poros and they still fought like madmen to win for Alexander.
>>1194639
>i-it doesnt count when the enemy is using the terrain!
>Which is, you know, plain strategy and tactics.
Shit argument.
>>1194683
Alexander won despite having the harder fight. That's the fucking point
>>1194570
>deep into India,
>reached the border of modern day east punjab.
Nigga can you even geography?
>>1192663
He really likely wouldn't have. He reminds me of Nader Shah, this utterly brilliant military mind and genius but his inability to make rational or logical decisions and his increasing strained relationship with his generals would've been his downfall.
I feel like even if he hadn't died of illness at 33, he would've been assassinated or murdered at some point within a decade.
>>1194330
>640,000 soldiers mobilized under a singer banner on a single battlefield
Although he is a shit source, Plutarch confirmed it. His estimates are on-par with Indian ones.
>As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was thirty-two furlongs, its depth a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at‑arms and horsemen and elephants. For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand fighting elephants. And there was no boasting in these reports. For Androcottus, who reigned there not long afterwards, made a present to Seleucus of five hundred elephants, and with an army of six hundred thousand men overran and subdued all India.
—Plutarch, Parallel Lives, "Life of Alexander"
>>1194682
Depends on how much you believe in Force-Theory and Alexander's Cult of Personality I guess. Even great Generals can be defeated if the odds are against them. Unless your Genghis Khan, then the rules of reason no longer apply.
Chandragupta Maurya himself was quite the General. Conquering all of North Indian and forming the Mauryan Empire at age 20.
>>1194719
>Depends on how much you believe in Force-Theory and Alexander's Cult of Personality I guess.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mallian_Campaign#Siege_of_Multanese_Citadel
Alexander's forces refused to storm the walls because of incoming missile fire. He charged up a ladder by himself to get them to follow. So many men followed him that the ladder snapped and he was left dangling. He pulled himself up and over the wall, and then disappeared.
Where just moments ago they were refusing to approach the walls, they now FORCED UP THE GATE BY SHEER FORCE OF NUMBERS.
They killed everybody and found Alexander with an arrow in his chest, but alive.
The entire army thought he'd died, and they had to barge him down the river in view of the entire army to convince them otherwise.
It took 6 months for him to recover.
you ever think some of Alexander's soldiers fapped to the thought of Alexander conquering their boipussys
>>1194687
And it was versus a petty fucking Indian King. What if he faced off more powerful Rajas?
Just to shove it to your face: Indians don't even have sources as to who the fuck Porus is. All we know from him is from Greek sources. He was that minor.
>>1192663
This photo aesthetically pleases me.
>>1195096
>Just to shove it to your face: Indians don't even have sources as to who the fuck Porus is.
Porus is likely a derivative of Pourusha in sanskrit as in manly or the First Man as in Pehalwan modern title of a wrestler originally derived from the original meaning of being the 'Chosen One' as in appointed as the head of state or military, he led the Paurava clan of the Punjab region so accordingly he would have been known to locals as Paurava Pourusha which was likely a title to the appointed war leader and likely not his real name.
>>1194330
Remember that Persia and India were two of the most populous places on Earth at the time, only surpassed by China.
Okay so riddle me this, if India was so powerful, why did they never conquer shit outside of their land?
Why are the pooinloo internet defenders so active in this thread, claiming that alexander would absolutely stand no chance with his indian invasion, while menander I literally BTFO'ed the Indians 150 years later?
>>1196040
>while menander I literally BTFO'ed the Indians 150 years later?
While Poos BTFO the Seleucids later?
>>1196051
They did, but I try to claim that hellenic armies would definitely have a chance to invade and conquer at least a big chunk of India. If Menander could do it, then Alexander could do it as well
>>1195649
India is so fucking huge that even coming close to uniting it would be a massive accomplishment, it's literally near the size of Europe and has always been infinitely more populated.
Why bother conquering other places when it's a struggle to conquer the subcontinent itself?
>>1196105
They're not magic just because they're Greek.
He'd have fucked up and lost his legendary status.
Dying young was the best thing that could have happened to his reputation.
What happened to turn /his/ into Historical Revisionism and Liberal Humanism
I'm very proud of /his/ after this thread.
/pol/ hero worship BTFO.
>>1196167
Seriously people worship this man like some kind of god and gobble up the propaganda like it is 300bc again.
He was a good general, but poor administrator.
>>1196776
>BTFO
Both sides are nothing but speculations. There were arguments but there is no utter consensus.
>>1198385
People here dont even think the holocaust happened.
This is as close to btfo as you can get on such a biased place.
>>1198402
Nine times out of ten they're joking. If you can't take that then you shouldn't even be on this website. The other one time the whole board gets so upset you see meta threads complaining about it for days. Even if this place has a bias it's certainly not towards /pol/.
>>1198414
7/10.
Good bait. Almost had me until the last statement.
>>1198430
>/his/ is biased to /pol/, I swear, I need some way to validate my victim complex!
>>1198358
He's as close to divine as any person in history has ever been
Ultimate general and arguably the greatest hero in history, on par with Achilles. His empire would have prospered like nothing before if he had lived. Forget Rome, it would have been a Macedonian vassal.
>>1198414
>>1198402
>>1198358
/his/ is populated mostly by people who got their first introduction to history from John Green.
The rest are just biased, one way or the other, for whatever reason, to one side or the other. These people know when they are over doing it but this is 4chan so everybody takes it to 11. That said...
Alexander died at 33 after creating a massive empire. He was a military genius and has been admired for various reasons for the past 2300 years.
In this thread people have speculated that he would have been crushed by India, or been assassinated, or simply failed to live up to his epitaph.
You are all engaging in the lowest form of historical revisionism. You are attributing defeat to an undefeated general, assassination to a monarch who inspired actions like >>1194824 , and claiming Alexander couldn't manage an Empire when, by all rights, he was doing a splendid job. He delegated where necessary, kept existing frame works, and had a vision for long-term social change and, by all accounts, probably the heft to accomplish it.
Alexander. The. Great.
From Macedonia to the Hindu Kush.
Had he lived 5 more years, he probably would have ensured a Greek dominion over all his conquered territory as well as all that Rome would eventually conquer.
But he didn't, so people like you try to discredit a man who changed the course of history.
>>1192670
kek'd hard
>>1195137
I see a lot of confusion like this in premodern historical sources. Like, Frankish historians thought various "Hun" kings were called "Gaganus" when it was just the title (Khagan)
>>1198482
You could say much the same about Napoleon but he lost in the end.
>>1201200
No, you really couldn't. Napoleon had conquered like half of Europe, Alexander conquered at least half of the civilized world.
>>1195649
why would you need to?
>>1201289
he conquered a weakened and destabilized persian empire.
>>1201397
Only weakened and destabilized empires get conquered.
>>1201397
200 years of Greco-Persian tension.
2 failed invasions by Persia.
Persia might have been weak when it fell, but at no point was it strong enough to conquer little old Greece.
Meanwhile, from 480-450 Greece treated Persia like a little bitch.
And in 400 Greece decisively won a battle for the Persian throne.
Persian-centric faggots are always making excuses for why Persia was unable to conquer a prosperous maritime civilization, for why Persia was consistently defeated by said civilization, and why Persia was eventually conquered by them.
Meanwhile, despite their projection of bias onto history, Greece did accomplish those things, and Greek culture went on to shape the rest of history while Persian culture was relegated to the dust bin of history.
>>1201689
Both Greeks and Persians have been relegated into the dustbins of history, Greece is just a bitchboy of Germoney now and Iran gets cucked by Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Persians at least have remained relevant from time to time since the ancient era, but the Greeks never recovered.
>>1202236
I am not arguing, and nor should we be, about the present relevance of modern Iran or Greece.
Ancient Greece is undoubtedly the most important actor in world history. Not only did it directly influence geopolitical matters for almost 3000 years, but the culture, language, philosophy and 'science' (to be broad) that sprang forth from it continued to shape it's successors and neighbours and both Eastern and Western thought until the 20th century.
Now, at last, the impact of Ancient Greece is negligible on the continued development of the modern world, but only after we've built our civilization upon it's shoulders.
Persia, though obviously influential, did not achieve the same lasting impact or legacy. Nobody did except for the Romans, but that is an entire different thread.
And the only reason Greece had such an impact is because of Alexander. We could speculate and say he would have squandered his legacy, or that someone else would have come along and kick started Hellenization had he not existed. Both could be true, in some alternate reality. But in this one the world you live in is a product of Alexander the Great and the legacy he left behind - as a legend and inspiration, through the Diadochi, and through his conquests.
inb4 some cunt cries
>>1202358
Civilization is a moving target.
The origination was with the advent of agriculture, the earliest evidence of which is 9800BC in the Fertile Crescent, Chogha Golan, Modern-day Iran.
The Greeks, and everyone else after them, built their civilization atop those who taught them how to cultivate crops.
Greek culture has been admired, but Christianity was a much more important building block of modern-day Western Culture than the Greeks. Most of Modern Culture you can attribute to the Greeks tends to be vague and unfocused, such as 'democracy' or 'philosophy', buzzwords without meaning.
>>1194598
hmm seing this map I wonder why he decided to push into india intead of going to mongolia, the Aral Sea or up to Sarmatia, there should be some historical reasons apart from the "MUH OCEANUS" meme
>>1192663
In Philip Freeman's biography he makes note of:
Possible expeditions around Africa,
Strengthening the trade route between India and the near-east,
Possible retaliatory conflict with the Carthaginians(as a result of supporting Tyre)
Expansion of his empire beyond the Caspian sea and the conquering of the Scythians
And possibly some sort of dealings with the growing threat of Rome.
Please do not shoot the messenger. I am just reciting what I've read.
>>1202387
>intead of going to mongolia
They followed civilization. Hence Greek->Persia->Egypt->India.
If he hadn't been stopped at India, then he could have tried to continue into China. But he turned around, died, his empire collapsing with him, and then his Satraps and Army being beaten by the Mauryan.
>>1202405
Hypothetical's are always a crap-shoot.
He could have done anything.
>>1202416
That's the point of the thread though.
>>1202385
>Civilization is a moving target.
>The origination was with the advent of agriculture, the earliest evidence of which is 9800BC in the Fertile Crescent, Chogha Golan, Modern-day Iran.
>The Greeks, and everyone else after them, built their civilization atop those who taught them how to cultivate crops.
That is an utter misrepresentation. Civilization entails a lot more than cultivation of crops.
It also is not a 'moving' target, but a culmination of steps. So you're correct in asserting that those first agriculturalists were, in all likelihood, one of the first steps.
But what about social stratification, political processes, systems of economics, organization of resources and persons?
Things spread, accumulate and evolve. It happens that a great many ideas accumulated and evolved in the Aegean under Greek civilization, and the result was a succession of influential developments spread outwards from Greece and Greek territories into India, Afghanistan, Persia, Egypt, the Levant, Anatolia, the Balkans, and Italy.
>Greek culture has been admired, but Christianity was a much more important building block of modern-day Western Culture than the Greeks. Most of Modern Culture you can attribute to the Greeks tends to be vague and unfocused, such as 'democracy' or 'philosophy', buzzwords without meaning.
This is nonsense. The Bible was first written in Greek, the first theologians were Greek, most of the Apostles were Greek, and the true faith was preserved by Greeks.
'Democracy' isn't a buzz word. Neither is 'constitution', 'history', 'literary criticism', 'geography'. Those were inventions of Greeks. And oh, all those words have Greek roots? Go figure.
>>1202405
Carthage and then Rome are popular ideas. He would have confronted the Indians eventually.
>>1202385
>>1202451
>>1202408
>his empire collapsing with him, and then his Satraps and Army being beaten by the Mauryan.
Seleucus didn't fight the Mauryans until a full 18 years after Alexander's death.
There is no comparison to be made between a brand new and enbattled Seleucid Empire and a Macedonian Hegemony going on 30 years under a single monarch.
>>1202422
Exactly, the point of the thread is useless. Everyone is just masturbating to fantasies of their infallible god, and ignoring reality.
>What happens if the Winter was mild when Napoleon invaded Russia?
FACT: Alexanders Empire barely outlasted his death. Evidently it wasn't well administered.
FACT: Alexander's Satraps were militarily defeated by the Mauryan's and kicked out of the edges of India they held in a single military campaign. Evidently, they could be defeated, both swiftly and easily.
CONCLUSION: Alexander could have conquered everything from India to China to Japan and taken Hellenistic ideals combined with local cultures to form a new super-culture that would have taken over the world to form a 1000-year empire that would have stretched all of Eurasia.
>>1202473
>FACT: Alexanders Empire barely outlasted his death. Evidently it wasn't well administered.
>die
>leave no successor
>people vie for power
Not much to do with administration.
>FACT: Alexander's Satraps were militarily defeated by the Mauryan's and kicked out of the edges of India they held in a single military campaign. Evidently, they could be defeated, both swiftly and easily.
>18 years after his death
>18 years of constant in-fighting
>not under Alexander
100% totally comparable. Might as well go home boys Alexander was a lie
>>1202451
> The Bible was first written in Greek, the first theologians were Greek, most of the Apostles were Greek, and the true faith was preserved by Greeks.
I don't even know why I bothered responding to you. This is just delusion and easily disprovable apart from the first New Testament being written in Greek. It would be a waste of time to point out how modern Democracy is fundamentally different in modern times and vastly more influence by the Romans and French than Greeks, along with the rest of your post.
To give you an example. The origins of Math and Decimal-holding numerals (as well as the idea of math itself being an abstract concept, rather than just representations of physical quantities) are Indian, and created by the Hindus. But you would be at folly to claim that Math itself is India, like you are trying to claim Democracy is Greek. They had influences and can be considered the original creators, but Modern Democracy and Mathematics are both vastly influenced by more contemporary figures like Locke and Newton.
>>1202473
I get that.
I am just relaying what an academic scholar believes to be possible outcomes had alexander lived out his life.
Maybe it'll spike someones interest on the topic idk.
>>1196040
I think that if Alexander managed to boost the morale of his soldiers throughout his Indian campaign to keep them from commiting muttiny he would've eventually conquered India by sheer force of will, but his army was tired and angry at him for having them on the march so long, hell he might have even captured some elephants and put them to use like he did with some Persian tactics
>>1202451
>The Bible was first written in Greek
erm... The Bible is written in American?
>>1202473
NO FUN ALLOWED: the post
>>1202236
>Persians at least have remained relevant from time to time since the ancient era, but the Greeks never recovered.
>what is the Byzantine Empire
>>1202490
>Not much to do with administration.
That has everything to do with administration.
>>1203772
>Dying early and having no heir means that your whole empire's administration is trash
There is no despotic empire in history that would not break into civil war upon its monarch's unexpected death.
