Shyam Popat vs. Leonidas the Lion

[removeduser_426582376423734]

I graciously allow you to choose a side, and post an argument. The debate is: "Had Alexander not died, would he have taken over India?"

[Leonidas The Lion]

OK here goes nothing.

My answer is NO if Alexander had not died he would not have conquered India.
Here is why.
Alexanders army war already growing tired of the constant conquest and wanted to return home if he pushed there would be some kind of mutiny or betrayal.
Secondly while in India his army was plagued by constant disease and he was loosing many men.
Some would say 'He had an army of Asians'
Well this was true but they where all mixed from different ethnicities and most importantly they all had a different language.
Alexander would face the same problems as Darius his army would not function properly because of the language barrier.
Orders would not get across fast enough and there would be confusion.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

My answer, by default, is that Alexander could quite possibly have won. Here are my reasons:

Alexander, shown in his campaign in India, showed that this "army of Asia" was still just as cohesive and effective as the army that invaded Persia. Most notable are the sieges of Bazira, Massaga, and, finally, Hydaspes. Both Bazira and Massaga were hugely fortified, and armed with "30 000 cavalry, 35 000 infantry, and 30 elephants", yet Alexander won with over 40 000 prisoners of war.

In 326BC, Alexander won the huge battle of Hydaspes, against Porus of Punjab. Here, Alexander showed that he had the ability to gain allies in the area, in this instance, Taxiles and Ambhi of Taxila, against the enemy. In this battle, a around 4000 men died on Alexander's side, with a huge 15 000 dead for Porus and another 5000 capture, approximately.

Alexander's ability to counter elephants, shown at Gaugamela and here at Hydaspes, showed that he could defeat almost all Indian armies - whose core component for shock was these elephants.

Finally, Alexander was forced to go South because of his chief councillor, Coenus. Had he not done this, he would not have been mortally wounded (and even after this, defeated the Mali ferociously), and would therefore be less inclined to leave India, and probably would annex it.

[Leonidas The Lion]

Alexander was pushing his army too far there was unrest among the Greek troops if they deserted him he would lose his most powerful experienced part of his army.

Then with his army of "Asians" would not fight properly because of the language barrier. Alexander relied on getting orders to the troops quickly whaen he saw a weak spot to be able to exploit it.It was always better for me to shout the orders down the line but with his army of "Asians" that would be impossible.

Alexander's ability to counter elephants, shown at Gaugamela and here at Hydaspes, showed that he could defeat almost all Indian armies - whose core component for shock was these elephants.

While that is true if his Greek troops deserted him he would lose the phalanx and lose his ability to counter elephants.

India was a massive country they would slowly wear down Alexander's Army.
To point where he would have to retreat.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Alexander was pushing his army too far there was unrest among the Greek troops if they deserted him he would lose his most powerful experienced part of his army.

This, I believe, is subjective. The phalanx were important to Alexander's hammer and anvil strategy, and I cannot see them revolting outright and leaving Alexander alone. That said, with the armies that he gained in Asia, he could quite well have gone without his Greeks. Although these armies were greener, some of them had been with him since he invaded Persia, so had had quite a few years of experience with Alexander. And, as he invaded India, he gained quite a few, more experienced, men, from annexed provinces.

Then with his army of "Asians" would not fight properly because of the language barrier. Alexander relied on getting orders to the troops quickly whaen he saw a weak spot to be able to exploit it.It was always better for me to shout the orders down the line but with his army of "Asians" that would be impossible.

I find this quite a weak argument. Firstly, most Indian nobles who had allied with Alexander spoke Greek, shown by letters from Alexander to them (e.g. King Ambhi) and vice-versa. Therefore, Alexander could quite easily give orders to these men, and have them interpret them and give them to messengers - men on swift horses who sped to give the orders to whoever needed them. So, in retrospect, your argument loses Alexander a rough few seconds to relay the message to a third party.

India was a massive country they would slowly wear down Alexander's Army.
To point where he would have to retreat.

As I've said, Alexander's army would wear down - all armies do in war - and he would gain new ones. Fresh troops poured in daily, to be trained and put into the frontline. And, anyway, it is shown through historical evidence that Alexander rarely lost huge amounts of men in battle - one incident at the siege of Sangala he lost a mere few hundred whilst killing 17 000 and capturing 70 000. Although these figures are hyperbolic, there is no doubt there is truth in them.

[Leonidas The Lion]

I find this quite a weak argument. Firstly, most Indian nobles who had allied with Alexander spoke Greek, shown by letters from Alexander to them (e.g. King Ambhi) and vice-versa.

There you have an error i did not say Indians had the language barrier I said Asians.
I know that technically Indians are Asian but I meant Persians, Bactrians etc.
This is one of the reasons why Darius lost so easily the language barrier.

Towards the end Alexander was becoming unsure of himself.
He had written many letters telling close friend how unsure he was of himself.

So eventually many victories may have followed but in the end Alexander would no have conquered India.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

There you have an error i did not say Indians had the language barrier I said Asians.
I know that technically Indians are Asian but I meant Persians, Bactrians etc.

I refer you to this quote:

Officers commanding contingents of foreign forces were probably required to master the use of the Greek language and some rudimentary knowledge of the basic Greek orders may have been taught to their subordinates.

This shows that, even before taking over Persia, his army had a strict routine. Foreign officers had to have a basic understanding of Greek, therefore could quite easily translate these orders.

This is one of the reasons why Darius lost so easily the language barrier.

A very minor reason. The main reasons could be unweildingly large forces, bad communication (not due to language), Alexander's cavalry (hammer-anvil strategem) and others.

Towards the end Alexander was becoming unsure of himself.
He had written many letters telling close friend how unsure he was of himself.

Not heard of this, any sources?

[Leonidas The Lion]

Now I would like to return back to the point that there was unrest among his Greek troops.
They were the blade of his sword and if hew lost them he would be grreatly weakened.
Most of his Greek troops wanted to return home after his long campaigns.
Alexander would be left with his inexperienced Asians and would crumble for sure.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

This is only if the Greeks went along with what they'd said. They said the same thing is Persia, before the Kush and after it. Alexander managed to persuade them by staying in his tent, and with dramatic speeches, and I'm sure he could have done it again.

[Leonidas The Lion]

This is only if the Greeks went along with what they'd said. They said the same thing is Persia, before the Kush and after it. Alexander managed to persuade them by staying in his tent, and with dramatic speeches, and I'm sure he could have done it again.

I see what you mean but for how long they were nearing the end of the world(or what was considered to be the world then)
The troops were scared and unsure as they moved into India so how long could Alexander persuade them to continue not very long.
Certainly not long enough to conquer India.