His Indian campaign was a blunder, correct?
He should have turned west for Carthage and Rome, then onto Iberia and Gaul
Centralized civilization connecting Persia and Europe, centralize power and focus on politics until old age(why did he die so young ;_;)
Why is he so dreamy?
>>353901
He had potential to do so much more, it's almost a tragedy. Dying so young at 32 when the world is practically at your feet.
I think it would have been best if he had finished arabia and anatolia, then went on to conquer the balkans and the pannonian plain and stopped there.
Rome and Carthage are better left alone.
>>353900
>why did he die so young
There's a possibility that some people got sick of his shit and poisioned him, though we'll never know for sure. IIRC before his sickness he was already building up forces to conquer Carthage.
>>353900
Alexander the Great owes most of his fame to legend building up over a period of several hundred years. In all likelyhood he would have been btfo someway if he headed west
>>354014
>There's a possibility that some people got sick of his shit and poisioned him
Seems probable. I mean, his troops did mutiny in India.
>>353900
he met with much success in what we know as pakistan today but his troops got pretty homesick or just didn't want to go on yet another fucking campaign that would probably have been victorious but would cost the lives of many due to disease and death in battle as it had done in Baktria
so his troops refused to cross, not really a "blunder"
he'd already been planning to cross the Indus with a new Diadochi army before he died
>>353900
>He should have turned west for Carthage and Rome, then onto Iberia and Gaul
He planned to do it eventually, but was first planning the conquest of the entirety of the Arabian Peninsula
>>353900
>He should have turned west for Carthage and Rome
Good thing he didn't otherwise he would have been BTFO by the Romans like every other Greek kingdom in history.
>>354181
>Good thing he didn't otherwise he would have been BTFO by the Romans like every other Greek kingdom in history.
Didnt the Romans actually admit that if they had ever fought Alexander they would had lost ?
>>354055
His army was unwilling to move further for a reason; it seems very unlikely he would have been successful.
He conquered the greeks and the decrepit achaemenid empire, but at the time India was probably among the most populous regions of the ancient world. The Indian armies further into the subcontinent than Pakistan were orders of magnitude larger.
The Nanda Empire alone he would have faced next had an elephant corps of 6000, which was almost 30 times the number of King Porus.
>>356347
No and even if they did historically manipluar system always defeated phalanax's because of its inherent tactical and strategic flexibility. Roman legions would usually flank and break down to smaller manipular units when engaging heavy hoplie or phalangites in phalanx formations and the sarisasses were unable to allow them to maneuver or wheel around fast enough given its cubersome length and impeding dimensions.
Rome survived Hannibal.
It would've survived Alexander.
>>353910
>Dying so young at 32 when the world is practically at your feet.
His soldiers were about to mutiny and go home. He had been campaigning for 13 years straight.
>>356600
>Rome survived Hannibal.
>It would've survived Alexander.
Scipio Africanus wouldn't have been around to win for Rome, m8. Rome was about to fall and Scipio pulled her out of the brink.
>>356924
Good thing they don't need Scipio Africanus for Alexander.
>>356924
You have a funny way of spelling Quintus Fabius Maximus
>>353900
No, if italy turned into one of his shitty successor states we probably wouldn't have Rome today.
>>356386
>200,000 infantry
>20,000 cavalry
>2,000 quadrigas
The Nandas allied with other empires in the Ganges they were at war with solely to push back Alexander.
The army likely wouldn't be very unified, but the sheer mass of humanity would still be a thing to behold, not to mention the battles themselves.
>>353900
By his own words, he wanted to be king of all of asia. Europe was an insignificant sparsely populated land on the fringes of the known and civilized world. Asia had wealth to plunder, europe didn't. Some would argue Europe didn't exist yet.
>Carthage and Rome
AKA places that didn't even exist yet.
>>357701
Rome existed since the 6th century, and Carthago since the 9th.
>>357701
Rome existed from 1auc. It was a regional power within ~100 years and the Republic was established in 209auc.
Alexander was born in 397auc.
>>353900
Because he had no vision. He just conquered for its own sake.
>>357743
Why even post if it's going to be such dumb shit?
>>356600
Nigger the Romans fought in a spear formation similar to hoplites during Alexander they didn't reform their military into the maniple system till around the end of the Samnite wars. Which concluded after Alexander's death.
Not to mention that maniples aren't superior to Phalanxes all the time. On good ground a roman legion would be hard pressed to break a veteran phalanx.
Not to mention Rome at the time only dominated central and southern Italy. Alexander had plenty of allies to choose from with the disgruntled Italians.
>>357664
Yeah, I thought it was mainly the reports of the size of the native Indian armies that made his mutiny. They were theoretically willing to go all the way, but they weren't gonna throw their lives away for it.
>>356600
Rome was a tiny kingdom at the time; Alexander the Great conquered Greece and Persia.
How the heck would they be able to hold their own against Alexander's enormous army?
>>357888
>Alexander conquered Greece
You mean Philip.
>>356347
>Didnt the Romans actually admit that if they had ever fought Alexander they would had lost ?
Caesar lamented that his conquering career wasn't nearly of the epic scale.
I don't think conquest on that scale would have been feasible again given that by the 1st century BC, cities were fortified and armies more heavily armored so that long-drawn-out siege warfare was a much greater necessity, and generally Eastern wars involved a lot of back-and-fourth with respect to political borders.
>>356600
Pyrrhus with the backing of tiny little Eprius and no money repeatedly BTFO the Romans, 50 years after Alexander died.
If Alexander had gone to war with the Romans he would have crushed them, no other way about it. Rome was still dealing with the Samnite's shit when Alexander died, and, unlike Pyrrhus, Alexander had a huge treasury, much larger pool of manpower and the ability to plan and carry out a campaign (rather than getting distracted by shiny things elsewhere)
>>357960
>Pyrrhus with the backing of tiny little Epirus
>repeatedly BTFO the Romans
>pyr·rhic1
>pirik/
>adjective
>adjective: pyrrhic; adjective: Pyrrhic
>(of a victory) won at too great a cost to have been worthwhile for the victor.
>>358089
He still beat big bad Rome with only part of western Greece
>>358098
>beat
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Beneventum_%28275_BC%29
>>358125
At least learn the origin of the term
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Asculum_%28279_BC%29
>>358149
Literally nothing to do with my prior post.
>>356600
Even if Alexander went against Rome at its height Rome wouldn't have an easy time of it. The Phalanx wasn't his real strength at all. He used it to hold and pin the enemy in place. His real strength was in his cavalry and auxiliaries. Unlike the Greeks Alexander was absolutely fine with things like ranged weapons and pulled the skilled soldiers in from wherever he conquered. He started with elite archers and by the end he was happily using Scythian horse archers.
Basically Alexander was a combined-arms leader that focused on his cavalry. He was not Phyrrus, who was the elephant-charge one trick pony. He was an expert all 'round that had inhumanly good timing with cavalry.
Not to mention that he was goddamn brilliant when it came to thinking laterally and choosing his battlefield. I mean his enemies throw burning carriages and barrels at his ranks - what does he do? Has them link shields and let the burning shit roll OVER their improvised ramp! That man was a fucking genius.
>>358176
this. People like to throw out the Phillip did everything meme, but forget that Alexander was constantly innovating his army and incorporating new tactics and units.
>>358170
Seeing as how you list off the definition of Pyrrhic victory, and the posted a battle that had nothing to do with it, and I posted the battle that spawned the term, I'd say you're fucking retarded
>>358184
No, retard.
I posted his last battle where he was blown out by the Romans, that's just you grasping at straws trying to link to unrelated posts together you fucking dolt.
>>358257
>tactically conclusive
>strategically forced to give up permanently campaigning against Rome and leave Italy
>loses Sicily soon afterwards
>Manga Greece annexed and subjugated
>one-sided loses
He lost, and his prior victories was him still losing more in his "victories". He was a less talented Hannibal.
>>358283
still missing the point, anon
>>358399
No I'm not. Tactically he lost, strategically he lost, physically he lost. The after effects of his withdrawal were both immediate and long-ranging.
>>358415
the point wasn't about Pyrrhus winning or losing, it was how much he achieved over the Roman's when he had so little. Epirus was a poor state and Pyrrhus was mainly relying on money lent to him by Macedon and Egypt.
Unlike Pyrrhus, if Alexander had invaded Rome he would have considerably more resources to draw upon than Rome and her allies, not less. Combine that with the fact that Pyrrhus demonstrated a Hellenic army was more than capable of inflicting defeats upon a Roman army (despite muh maniples) i really can't see him failing to conquer the city
>>358422
The point you are missing is applying a no limits fallacy statute for claiming and stretching Pyrrhus' accomplishments and feats to Alexander. The point that is further going over your head is that those "victories" always cost Pyrrhus more then what he wanted.
You and no one else has any quantifiable proof of how or what any scenario involving Hoplite and Phalangite units lead by Alexander would fair against Roman maniples or legionaries. Historically, even Hannibal failed and Hannibal was a superior general who used the same varied types of units as Alexander; skirmishers, missile troops, hoplites, light and heavy cavalry, war elephants, and so on.
Those victories you praise Pyrrhus for always cost him more in the long run by his own hand. This proves nothing.
>>358422
>>358429
Just to speak of manpower here; Rome already had multiple Latin and Italic city-states in a military "alliance" under its command after the first Latin War and by the time of the first Samnite War.
And they were already comepeting with Carthage over the South and Western Mediterranean seas commercially. Rome was not some piss backwards city-state, it was already a pretty competitive merchantile empire. They had money, wealth, and the bodies to throw if Alexander came knocking.
>>358429
> those "victories" always cost Pyrrhus more then what he wanted.
they cost more than Pyrrhus wanted because he did not have the ability to properly replenish these losses. He was poor and Epirus was poor. This is not a weakness Alexander would have had
>Hannibal was a superior general
under what basis?
>there are people on this board RIGHT NOW who think Alexander wouldn't BTFO the fuck out of romans
kek
Guys
Alexander could have never conquered India or China. Too many people, too complex of a civilization, too advanced.
Rome would have been easy to do, with the cooperation of Syracuse and Taranto. Chartage would have been slighly tougher, but if he could unite all the greeks in Sicily and even enlist the Romans he would have been golden.
But Italy and Spain would have presented problems. The samnites, the ibero-celtic people. All dank tribes of warrios who didn't enjoy being conquered. So expect gorilla warfare and unrest.
Gaul? Fuck Gaul. Just maintain southern, greekfied Gaul.
>>358455
When you think about it half of the italian peninsula and any kingdoms in that direction would surrender and ally with him by default if he as much as looked in their direction
>>358444
nice digits.
Anyway if memory serves the Romans were still fighting the Samnites around the time of Alexander's death. So while they weren't push overs, they didn't have the same depth of resources as they had during the Pyrrhic wars, let alone the Punic Wars.
>>358429
>Hannibal was a superior general
Just stop lmao. Alexander was unpararelled in world history until 13th century AD.
>>358454
>They cost more than Pyrrhus wanted
They costed more then what was sustainable for any competent military strategist or tactician. He was losing from the start on the basis of attrition alone because the Romans were always matching him even in "defeat."
And Epirus was not particularly poor. In fact when Pyrrhus was alive and leading it, it was as powerful as Macedonia even economically comparative at its peak under the Antigonid dynasty. So bullshit. Pyrrhus even only claim to the Magna Greece's defense because he craved military glory and he had the money to put such an expedition into effect.
>under what basis
Under every modern military historians general universal consensus.
>>358455
Alexanderfags are a true cancer.
>>358469
>Alexander was unparalleled until 13th century AD.
>tfw Alexander could have just conquered a small amount of land (like the Asian minor) and left a stable empire that could take on Rome but instead he tried to conquer the world and when he died the wars of the Diadochi left easily conquered land for the Romans
>>358463
First Samnite War ended in 341 BC, and there would've been no other Samnite Wars had not the lucky break the Samnites caught when several other Latin tribes revolved when the Romans were coming to finish them off.
Second Samnite War wouldn't even happen until 15 or so years later.
>>358473
Rome fanboys are always too biased to debate.
>>358463
Almost all of the Latin and native Italic tribes were already under Rome's influence by the end of the First Samnite War and after the Latin revolt in the Latin War.
True they didn't have all of Italy as there were Celtic and especially some Gaulic territories by the Alps and into Northern Italy but Rome was already far-flung outside of the areas of Sardinia and Magna Greece sphere of influence in Southern Italy.
>>358470
>Romans were always matching him even in "defeat.
only when you compare the losses to their manpower reserve. The majority of Pyrrhus' victories over Rome saw the Epriotes inflicting considerable more casualties on the Roman's than they received
>he had the money to put such an expedition into effect.
much of his money came from Ptolemy II and Ptolemy Ceraunus. His resources are in no way comparable to what Alexander had after his conquest of Persia.
>Under every modern military historians general universal consensus.
so your arse?
>>358481
>>358491
well here's the map
>>358495
>only when you compare the losses to their manpower reserve.
No, that's shit generalship. Losing 10% of your forces in every battle is on him.
>much of his money came from Ptolemy II and Ptolemy Ceraunus.
Bullshit. He had the money, capital, and financial backing to perform his own expeditions and even hire large contingents of mercenaries with straight pay. He refused to fund the invasion of Carthage from his own coffers; note not INCAPABLE, but REFUSED and demanded the Sicilians fund it for his efforts which they balked and refused to.
>so your arse?
Nope.
>>358501
Yep, see how much of central and parts of Northern and Southern Italy are under Roman dominion by the end of both the 1st Samnite War and Latin War.
North of Seoni was Gaulic or Celtic holdouts. The lionshare of Italian and Latin city-states were already bound to Rome.
>>358506
That's bullshit, it was until the Sicilians demanded that the Carthaginian city Lilybaeum be captured did he ask for men and money, at which point the Sicilians got butthurt and kicked him out
>>353900
Those places are less than worthless in comparison to India. There is always the possibility, also, that he would have gotten BTFO and embarrassed by the Romans.
>>358524
Lilybaeum was already planned to be sieged by Pyrrhus, what are you even talking about. His mishandling of the Sicilian territories was so bad and inept that he forcibly took the money from them to build a fleet to wage war against Carthage after they kicked the shit out of his allies all over Southern Italy.
It was not reactive, it was a proactive on Pyrrhus' part so that's straight half-truth your pushing there, dude.
>>358524
Sicilians were pissed because they were already giving him extra monetary aid to hire siege engineers and he was failing to make any sort of notable progress for months. They eventually told him to stop, he stops, then he asked for more money once things more or less settled with Carthage for the Sicilians and then Pyrrhus gets pissed off, sends in soldiers to garrison the island and takes money forcibly to try and build a fleet.
Anyway I'm going to bed, its already 6am.
>>358546
Goodnight, faggot.
Seeing how Rome and Carthage were in good terms before the Punic Wars, how would an alliance between Rome and Carthage go against Alexander?
>>358570
Rude desu
>>353900
Europe at that point was a handful of people living in the forest, painting themselves blue, and howling at the moon. Up until relatively recently, the East is where all the money was at.
>>358606
>applying the Woad sterotype to non-Celtic Europeans
>Estrucans
>Magna Greece
>>356924
ignorant ameridumbs should not be allowed to speak
>>358617
They were part of the 'known world' though
Like beyond Italy ancient maps of Europe often had islands and sea, they had very little idea of how much lay beyond the alps.
>>353900
Alexander of Epirus, uncle of Alexander the Great, invaded Italy around the same time as the Persian invasion. His expedition failed and would die in an ambush. There is a quote associated with him. "As Alexander the Great fought women in Persia, Alexander of Epirus fought men in Italia."
>>354181
The Romans didn't fight a proper combined arms phalanx army though. Alexander was an incredibly skilled cavalry commander with an impeccable sense of timing. I just can't see the Romans beating him
>You will never roam the ancient world
>You will never wander the great unknown, not knowing what or who you might encounter in the next town
>You will never wonder what lies beyond the limits of the Roman empire
>You will never explore the Earth
http://www.citymetric.com/horizons/bored-work-here-s-google-style-digital-map-roman-empire-play-1649
http://pelagios.dme.ait.ac.at/maps/greco-roman/
How do you guys deal with this?
>>358675
The ancient world would have been quite hard unless you were born into a higher class
I for one would love to have been an Athenian sailor or merchant
>>358089
He actually referred to the Romans' ability to constantly raise armies. It wasn't so much that he took a royal shoeing.
>>358617
>Missing the point
>Twice
>Combo
>>358656
Except Alexander of Epirus fought Samnites, Lucanians and Bruttians
>>353910
I think that he would have faced rebellion and assasination (if that's not exactly what happened already) a few years after returning to Babylon anyways.
Prove me wrong.
>>356386
The soldiers couldn't know this. The reason was that they had been campaigning for more than a decade.
>>357949
Caesar lamented before doing anything of worth at war. He wasn't comparing the military career of both, he was lamenting that Alexander got a kingdom and an army when he was 20 and he didn't.
>>358923
More radical in real life than modern people could imagine.
>>358675
By wanting to kill myself.
>>358981
Supposedly an elephant could lift a man and horse with its trunk, pretty scare. They could also tear off the crenelation of low walls.
>>358993
that elephant ate my entire platoon
>>358501
Considering Alexander would have fought the Romans in 320-315 the controlled territory of the Romans was very very small. The Romans were a minor state compared to Alexander's empire.
Just the Greek part of his empire would have defeated Rome in 320bc.
>>357949
Caesar was planning an epic conquest of the Parthian Empire at the time of his assassination. I wonder if it would have succeeded
>>358501
>Narnia
>>358501
Unrelated anon here, but noice map family.
>>359218
Likely he would've been an early Trajan, and Augustus his Hadrian.
