Alexander the Great

[silver_fox]

Tho Memnon did have a Persian wife (whom alex later took as his wife, before Roxane), and two Greek-Persian kids.
And he was indeed a brilliant General, and had he not beed Poisoned(presumably), he might have been the thing that stopped Alex

[Rosacrux redux]

Does the nationality of your wife determin your own?

[hellheaven1987]

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

Ya, but his strategy is not a popular one, for both local population and Darius III. I really don't think destory everything and retreat without a fight would help to increase the moral of army and the whole people in empire. If Darius really fellow Memnon's strategy - destoried everything on the path that Alexander would passed and brought the war to Greece, I think Darius might face a total rebellion of his empire after he defeated Greek and Macedonian.

By the way, Memnon was a Greek!!!

[Carach]

he was one of the mercenaries the persians employed isnt he?

they had quite a big portion of greek mercenaries in the battles, were the hardest alexander faced in the persian battleline heh..
alexander didnt treat greek mercs very well i think ? as it was a war against the enemy of the greeks..and they were seen as traitors.

[hellheaven1987]

Different situation was different. Sometime he treated them quit ok, especially the later campaign after he captured Babylon. However, most of time he just prisoned them. It is reasonable as before he invaded Persia, the Macedon and Greek Cities already made an alliance which had one rule declared that "no Greek or Macedonian would against Greek and Macedonian under foreign power". Hence he just treated the Greek mercenary like traitor. (Athenians were an exception)

[Spartan JKM]

It is probably for the best, at least for his traditional reputation of incredible eminence, that Alexander died when he did; further years would have probably brought disillusionment and defeat, if just politically. He was half insane and seemingly never going recover from the death of Hephaestion, which occured just one year before his own death.

Alexander understood fully that integration was essential for the Pan-Hellenic culture he wanted to establish. Just like now, the world he saw was multi-cultural and becoming more so. But, as now, there were many who opposed and resisted any aspect of integration, particularly interspersed marriages between his troops and Asiatic women. Replacing Macedonians with Persians via marriage etc. will go a long way toward appearances of integration, but it was never going to win over the hearts of his core people, who felt somewhat abandoned by Alexander by 323 B.C. He certainly was going to achieve much outward conformity, but not inner commitment, which is why he wasn't going any further with regards to conquest and empire.

Thanks, Spartan JKM :original:

[kid]

Well, that's a very nice way to prove me wrong. :original: (note: I'm not being sarcastic here, in case someone was wondering)

I don't have any answers to these counter arguments, so let me just meekly explain my post better.

As I understand it, Alexander had Parmenion killed because, being the father of Philotas, it was impossible to know wether or not he was implicated in the attempted murder, and Alexander could not take a chance (date questions notwithstanding [I didn't know that]). Again, with history written by him, who can truly know?
In any case, that's not what I would call a power play if we take it at face value.

In my ignorant phillistine view, I didn't include Carthage in my view of Europe . Let's put it aside (if you will) for the sake of the argument, being that it was a city, not a tribe like the rest at the time. For that matter, let's put Rome (and Italy) aside too.

Why I believe such a campaign would have ended him is the motivation for rebellion. I am aware that rebellion has happened everywhere, but for different reasons. In the east (Asia Minor) the factors were complex, but simple. Either a lord or sovereign would make a bid for more power, (unsupported and taken out with ease) or the people would revolt because of taxes or conditions unfair to them. As Carach mentioned, Alexander was good with the carrot, and I doubt he would have idly let this happen. He tended not to change polocies at a local level (that I'm aware of).
This at once reduces the need for rebellion and makes it easier to put down.
In essence, a city state of Asia Minor would not care who was their supreme lord and master as long as he (or hopefully she) was reasonable.
Alexander proved this, as did the Romans later on.
(religious disputes notwithstanding, lets excludes holy wars if you guys don't mind)

The tribes of Western Europe, on the other hand, were more blindly patriotic (what's changed? ) and more prone to rebel at any master not of their kind.

Now, this is not to say that Alexander could not have conquered them, just that keeping them in line would have been a problem. This would have put a strain on his empire, and I'm of the firm belief that empires cannot be allowed to grow too quickly (or people will make more grabs for power/rebel against the xenos). Let's look at Rome. The other cities in Italy were, at first, quite resistant to the central power of Rome. They were itching to rid themselves of the yoke (perhaps a more knowledgeable person could fill us in on a specific example, it's been a long time since I've read my "Roman Republic" books) yet by the time Phyrrus arrived, these same cities flatly refused to betray their master, Rome. If Rome had expanded so quickly, as this topic suggests Alexander could have, I don't think the empire could have been held together, in either iteration.

Let me state firmly that I do believe that Italy and Carthage could have been conquered by Alexander. Just not the rest.

As for wealth, I still don't agree. For one thing, the harvesting of this wealth needs a stable region, which it would not be (I hope I've convinced people of this) and for another, much of this wealth was not readilly available, like marble, gold, silver or tin. Each needs knowledge of it's existence first, and then operations need to be set up, taking time and money. Secondly, the northern parts are not quite so rich or hospitable, and there are more of them. (and they're bloody cold, too)

Then we must consider the amount of men and material that would have been required to mantain that kind of Empire. No time to let it settle, either. All of Macedon would have been stripped of it's menfolk to participate in these wars and these peacekeeping details (for with Alexander in Britain, the Satrap of Tyre might have been less forthcoming with his taxes).

Next, we must look at the borders, and their vulnerabilities. The Romans, when we think of it, were lucky. They had natural borders, be they the Alps, the sea, the Pyrenees, the Sahara or whatnot, they did not simply take a chunk in the middle of Germany that was open to 360 degrees of attack.
Alexander would. Not only would he be open to attack from the formidable Stepp warriors, the wealthy lords of India, and the Nubian kings, but he would now open himself to attack from every tribe in Europe. He might have even been condidered a threat further outwards, such as Ethiopia or further east than India.

Logistics also play a role. It's not that hard to get food and equipment to an army in the middle of such a rich empire, but what of Britain or Sweden? how? with a bireme through the Pillars of Hercules?? HAH!

Finally, we should not forget the military limitaions of the phalanx, more open within a forest, and moving slowly in woods, snow or heavy desert. Alexander was prone to hiring locals, it is true, but then his treasury would have taken even more of a knock. His cavalry was too limited to take the forefront, especially since stirups had not yet been invented (which is why I get ****** off at Rome Total War when a cavalry unit smashes the hell out of heavy infantry) and cav was therefore severly limited.

Post-finally (what?) there was the issue of the supposed superiority of the Greeks (and tentively the Macedionians, not Greeks, but not quite barbarians). The greek cities under Persia had been liberated, the deed was done. To then go and start other campaigns would have to have been done without Greek help, and with strong objections from Macedon (waste of time) which in turn would hurt the moral of ALexander's army.

I'm finally done . I hope you've enjoyed your flight. For those of you who jumped ship while in the air, please note that this company will take no responsiblity for personal injury or loss of property incurred through such actions.

I hope I'll be forgiven the length and the typos. It's late here (well not really, but I've had a very long day) and I may have gotten a tiny bit carried away.

[Legionary Jezza]

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.

But I read that after he taken Persia he thought of going west.

[hellheaven1987]

But I read that after he taken Persia he thought of going west.

What I mean here is, he wanted to do that, but Arabia and Russia would spend the rest of his life. He won't have anymore time to invade the West.

[Rosacrux redux]

Kid

Very interesting arguments and rather sound - although the ease with which the Romans took and held western europe and britian does not support your arguments.

But I'd like to stress a point you make about patriotic tribes etc. I think holding down the Greek city-states was a quite more formidable and difficult task, than holding down the western "barbaric" tribes. Not to mention that the Romans held those areas with minimal garissons, very few (and far apart) incidents of rebellion and managed to extensively "romanize" the whole area from the "steles of Heracles" to Kaledonia.

On the contrary, the Romans managed to hold down the Greek city-states only after they were severely weakened and even at that point, they gave them extensive liberties ("Free City" status to Athens and many other cities). Alexander knew that the moment he lose the first battle, the city-states would go all-greek upon his arse, despite the terrible fate of Theba to serve as an example to those who cross the common Greek cause.

So, I would disagree. It would be quite easy for Alex to take western Europe and establish firm boundaries on the same "natural" boundaries the Romans used (Danube, Alps, Rine and the Ocean). He already had a huge pool of manpower ready and willing to use: that of the former Persian empire. Also, new generations of young southern Greeks were coming at age and the prospect of the life of a mercenary in the service of the Conqueror of the World wouldn't be a too shabby one, huh?

OF course going past those "natural" borders, would leave many doors open and even if he managed to take central and eastern Europe holding to it might've proved too much of a difficult task.

[TheTank]

[QUOTEVery interesting arguments and rather sound - although the ease with which the Romans took and held western europe and britian does not support your arguments.][/QUOTE]

Rosacrux redux, the Celtic tribes that where defeated by Rome where by far weaker than the Celts in Alexander's time period.
Infighting and Germanic invasion severerly weakend the continental Celts.

[Rosacrux redux]

Infighting was a given at the time of Alexander as well. Much more than that, the Celts at that point lacked any signs of cohesion that was brought about much later - in the very times of the first germanic invasions along the Rhine line. Caesar managed to actually walz over Gaul despite the efforts of large collectives of tribes to confront him. What exactly shows that the Celts were stronger in the late 4th century than they were in the mid 1st century? I am not awfully familiar with Celtic history, so I'd appreciate some references about that.

Of course we have an example of Celts in their hight fighting against Greeks - the Celtic invasion of the Greek area. The kingdom of Macedonia had a tough time but the Aetolian league managed to eliminate the threat and force the Celts to cross over to hellespontine Phrygia and even further east, where they settled in the area that took their name. I really don't know if we can derive any sorts of valid conclusions by this incident, as it is not characteristic of what would be the game if the united Greek world (along with the former persian empire) would venture westwards. Celts lacked unity. Alex could pick them out and eliminate them one by one, just as the Romans did later, even by using one against the other. Alex was not only a military but also a political genious, and that is rather evident by his actions.

[SigniferOne]

As a side note, the Celts were defeated long before Caesar. It was at Telamon (and earlier, at Sentinum) that Celts really were crushed and on the defensive from then on. That's only 100 years after Alexander. I don't think that's a huge amount of time to get a lot weaker.

However, at the same time, I don't think the Celtic defeat at the Roman hands was by any means easy, although once defeated, Celts came into civilization very rapidly.

[MaximiIian]

perhaps one of the greatest losses to civlization

I couldn't disagree more. It was because Alexander's Empire became splintered, fractured, and weak that allowed Rome to conquer Greece, Egypt, and the immediate east. Rome would not have had Constantinople. We would not have had the Byzantine empire. We would not have had the Renaissance.

[hellheaven1987]

I couldn't disagree more. It was because Alexander's Empire became splintered, fractured, and weak that allowed Rome to conquer Greece, Egypt, and the immediate east. Rome would not have had Constantinople. We would not have had the Byzantine empire. We would not have had the Renaissance.

Well, I think Renaissance was more about Italy city states instead Byzatium.

[Final Frontier]

Well, I think Renaissance was more about Italy city states instead Byzatium.

Well, the Renaissance was [partially] a revival of the Roman/Greek literature/thinking, so there was some variety of where it came from. Oh, and the scholars from the Byzantine Empire fled to Italy during its last years, influencing the classic ideas. But you are correct in the sense of the Renaissance first occuring in Italy- Florence, to be exact.

[hellheaven1987]

Thank you, but it create a doubt for me. If the Renaissance was occured in Italy after Byzatium said good bye, why it couldn't occure before that?

[Final Frontier]

Well, I imagine that because Constantinople had such an important role in the trade with the East that its fall helped Western Europe realize the importance of the roots of the Byzantine Empire, aka Rome and Greece. I'm no expert on this specific time period, so that's the best I can give you, a keen observation. Hopefully one of the more knowledgable people'll fill you in once the satisfaction (if any) from my response wears away.

[hellheaven1987]

I am not too. In fact, I know nothing about this period.

[Octavius Valorius]

Thank you, but it create a doubt for me. If the Renaissance was occured in Italy after Byzatium said good bye, why it couldn't occure before that?

I believe the Renaissance couldn't occur before Byzantine's fall because there was no need. Constantinopolis was central to the Greek and Roman ideals after the fall of Rome. So when Constantinopolis fell, the surviving scholars felt the Greek and Roman ideals would be lost forever unless they did something about it. So they made it their personal duty to uphold and spread the ideals as far as possible. Thus, I believe, starting the Renaissance.