Alexander the Great

[John I Tzimisces]

There were/are major cities on the coast of the arabian peninsula that profited greatly from trade. When we say he wanted to take over arabia, we don't really mean the worthless expanse of desert.

[Blaven]

There were/are major cities on the coast of the arabian peninsula that profited greatly from trade. When we say he wanted to take over arabia, we don't really mean the worthless expanse of desert.

Yeah. He would've just taken the coast along the Red Sea and Persian Gulf (look at a map of the Ottoman Empire and you'll see what I mean). Do we even know anything about ancient Arabian warfare, though?

I think if he conquered Arabia and then expanded to Rome and Carthage, his eastern provinces would've rebelled. I believe the Greek cities rebelled when he was campaigning, and the Macedonian governor had to keep troops that were suppossed to go to Al to help keep the peace. Maybe even some dissatisfied generals of his could've staged a coup and we probably still would've ended up with diadochi.

[IMPERATOR_5]

yeah, the coast of the arabian peninsula was the target..explains all the ships they built for the invasion..
Alexander was also intrested of the area around the Caspian Sea where the Scythians lived.
And it was some talk about that Admiral Nearchos was going to sail around africa

[Last Roman]

There were major cities on the coast of the arabian peninsula that profited greatly from trade.

I didn't know that. Learn something new every day. :original:

[Carach]

I think if he conquered Arabia and then expanded to Rome and Carthage, his eastern provinces would've rebelled. I believe the Greek cities rebelled when he was campaigning, and the Macedonian governor had to keep troops that were suppossed to go to Al to help keep the peace. Maybe even some dissatisfied generals of his could've staged a coup and we probably still would've ended up with diadochi.

ah yes, some of the greek states rebelled (e.g sparta) a couple of times, they were put down once, and alexander sent one of his captains back with veterans to greece to put down the rebellion there - they most likelywould have put it down, but they didnt make it that far before news spread that alexander had died and they all started taking their portions (i think this captain and his army going back actually became the seluecid empire?).

Some of the eastern provinces did try splitting from persian influence as it fell apart, alexander put down several groups that tried getting land grabs and so forth in the east. He married into relationships with the far eastern groups though i think? Making it harder for them to effectively rebel..

But of course there would be rebellions in some places, the romans had their fair share too. But they were put down just like alexander would of put them down - its the carrot and the stick again :wink:

as for the disatisfied generals coup thing, alexander had one or two executed for that very reason, he believed some were trying to take too much power for themselves..

[kid]

I'm not sure he could have survived a Western European campaign. For one thing, the Romans have shown us how much harder it is to conquer lands there (bloody tribes keep getting annoyed for no good reason) as opposed to Asia Minor, where if you just put someone in power, it's yours (the Greek Cities seem to have been somewhat of an exception, but they were his allies, not his vassals (in name, in any case, perhaps not in practice)). Sure, places rebel there too, but one nice battle (or assassination), and it's over.

For another thing, Europe was a dirty, poor, useless place. None of the precious gold of Babylon. How would he have justified it to his men, his allies and his generals? They would have refused to continue far, far earlier if there had been no gold for the taking.

By the way, from what I can remember, he only executed generals for trying to overthrow/kill him. Power grabs were more common. I'm not certain though, and history is written by the winners and all, so who knows I guess.

[Romanos]

By the way, from what I can remember, he only executed generals for trying to overthrow/kill him. Power grabs were more common. I'm not certain though, and history is written by the winners and all, so who knows I guess.

No. Parmenion and (is son) Philotas where both killed (murdered is more like it) because Alexandre feared them especially Parmenion. There was a good chance that Philotas may had something to do with the attemp by the Pages to killed of Alexander.(but always debatable).

[Last Roman]

For another thing, Europe was a dirty, poor, useless place. None of the precious gold of Babylon. How would he have justified it to his men, his allies and his generals? They would have refused to continue far, far earlier if there had been no gold for the taking.

not at all. There were plenty of natural resources. Good farming lands in Italy as well as marble and other stone that could be used for buildings. Carthage was an ideal trading spot. Spain had silver. Gaul had wood. you get the point.

[Carach]

I'm not sure he could have survived a Western European campaign. For one thing, the Romans have shown us how much harder it is to conquer lands there (bloody tribes keep getting annoyed for no good reason) as opposed to Asia Minor, where if you just put someone in power, it's yours (the Greek Cities seem to have been somewhat of an exception, but they were his allies, not his vassals (in name, in any case, perhaps not in practice)). Sure, places rebel there too, but one nice battle (or assassination), and it's over.

With the kind of manpower alexander could bring to battle after conquering that empire, the lack of united enemies in the west, he could easily have taken the area. The only problem i would see is that the phalanx system works well on open battle - not in congested forests which filled a lot of gaul/germania and so forth.
Rebellions occured in every major empire, from ancient egypt, persia, alexander's empire, the roman empire, the british empire, and so forth. Didnt the romans 'make examples' of rebels though? this could and probably would of been done by alexander too, again you must remember he was quite good with carrot and stick policies.

For another thing, Europe was a dirty, poor, useless place. None of the precious gold of Babylon. How would he have justified it to his men, his allies and his generals? They would have refused to continue far, far earlier if there had been no gold for the taking.

I think this ones already been argued, europe may not have had the gold richness, but it had good farming and other unique resources that would make it important. Greek colonies had been setup all over the place and we know they were good at flourishing, Carthage aswell, was a trading centre in the western med. Alexander could have conquered it relatively easy (i mean..he just destroyed the largest empire of the known world...)

Also it was nice to take because well, Alexander liked considering himself a god or son of..or whatever, he could of taken it simple because 'he could'? possibly..He had already gone further than some of the greek god legends by crossing the indus? (i think?)..

[IMPERATOR_5]

Philotas may had something to do with the attemp by the Pages to killed of Alexander.(but always debatable).

Even if Philotas had been dead for 3 years (330bc) and the pages plot did happend 327 bc?

[Romanos]

Even if Philotas had been dead for 3 years (330bc) and the pages plot did happend 327 bc?

lol to tierd to have a comeback.

[IMPERATOR_5]

lol to tierd to have a comeback.

haha.. ok

[hellheaven1987]

Well, does anyone here think about if Alexander died right in the start of his Persian compaign? What do you think will happen if he did?

From my point of view, I believe that Persia Empire probably would survive and dominated the Middle East and Iran for another few hundred years if nothing went wrong. The great religion tolerance of Persian Great King would help his empire to survive better. In the same time, Greek and Macedons would fall into war, probably a continuing war for century, which caused the big disaster for Greece. Rome would rise up as they were quick learner, so they would surely build up an empire as what they actually did in real history. However, their culture would probably less Greek but more Celts and others, as Greek culture would never never expand if Alexander never conquered Persia. Greek culture would probably became a forgotten culture just like Celt culture today... Then the whole world would surely be quit different than today's one...

[jw1089]

interesting view, but Darius the III was a weak leader. he would hav probably been taken out by others vying for power, and his empire would have probably split. i guess thers no way to tell

[hellheaven1987]

Ya, but Darius III was once a general who became great king only because he took the power by arm. Hence someone who was better than him could probably did the same thing again, and Persia would probably stay for peace for another few centuries.

[Legionary Jezza]

Well, anyway if alexander DID take all east would he then tun around and then take west and if he did take west how much of history would that change?

[hellheaven1987]

He won't, as he didn't have so much time. He probabaly would take Arabia and pushed his border to today's Russia, as they were closer to Babylon. After that, it should be the time for him to die.

[Carach]

interesting view, but Darius the III was a weak leader. he would hav probably been taken out by others vying for power, and his empire would have probably split. i guess thers no way to tell

there were always struggles for power in the persian empire once the leader had died.

He won't, as he didn't have so much time. He probabaly would take Arabia and pushed his border to today's Russia, as they were closer to Babylon. After that, it should be the time for him to die.

wasnt he very very young and took the whole of the persian empire in a very quick time...a few relatively weak kingdoms along the border he either allied with or could have crushed the ones that refused to ally.. We saw this happen several times on his campaigns.

Well, anyway if alexander DID take all east would he then tun around and then take west and if he did take west how much of history would that change?

You wouldnt of had roman history :wink:

[Romanos]

Probably the best general to fight off Alexander was the Greek-Persian Memnon

[Rosacrux redux]

Memnon was not Greek-Persian, he was a Greek from the island of Rhodes in Persian service, and he was indeed a splendid commander. With a smallish force he managed not only to halt the advance of Parmenion's expedition force, but he took back most of the cities Parmenion had taken in the opening of the campaign.

Memnon was the man who adviced Dariush's generals not to fight Alexander with the meager forces they had at their disposals and instead try to fortify the cities, harass Alex's supply lines and if he follows them retreat all the way to Cilicia while enforcing a scorched earth policy. He suggested facing Alex only with the imperial army, being recruited in the east at that very time. Had he the leadership in the two great battles that ensued, might or might've not changed the outcome. He was far superior than any other Persian commander and he had a thorough knowledge of the Greek ways of fighting and specifically the Macedonian, as he and his brother spend a few years in exile in Philip's court in Aegai.

Memnon was also the guy who conceived the "behind the lines" strategy after Granicus: Persian seaborne invasions in selected targets in the Aegean, and extensive use of bribery. Luckily, he died early in the conflict (from a disease, if memory serves me well).