Why could not Alexander the Great conquer India? I hear d he was the greatest conqueror in history. Why couldn't he take control of a few back water kingdoms?
Why could not Alexander the Great conquer India? I hear d he was the greatest conqueror in history...
Joshua Wilson
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
James Lopez
This.
Also, why didn't he conquer germany? They were just a bunch of backwater tribes
Lucas Cooper
Why didn't he conquer America? Those fucks didn't even have civilization back then.
Macedonian phalanx would have totally rolfstomped them dood.
Connor Carter
Thirded
Also, what stopped Alexander from conquering America? Literally just backwater tribes
Imagine the United Hellenic States of Greek America, the world that could have been
Christian Carter
I'm asking about X and you give me Y.
India was right there for the taking. Not America.
Grayson Hughes
>right there
Sure was, right there literally next door to Macedonia
Lincoln Butler
But he WAS in India then. He travelled there with his strongest troops (if I'm not wrong)
Hunter Murphy
But it wasn't.
His army was tired and homesick. His conquered territories were at the brink of rebellion. Not to mention those backwater kingdoms were both large and powerful.
Noah Richardson
>Not to mention those backwater kingdoms were both large and powerful.
Really? If that's true then how come I've never heard about it if they were so good?
Could if he had taken over if the distance wasn't so vast?
Jacob Williams
He made it to the edge of the subcontinent like 3000 miles from Macedonia after 10 years of continuous campaigning and you wonder how he didn't just grab that gargantuan mass of land full of ancient af kingdoms?
Brayden Sanchez
>If that's true then how come I've never heard about it if they were so good?
Because you haven't studied the entire history of an entire sub-continent?
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Zachary James
Fair enough. It (memes aside) makes me think. But answer this
>Could if he had taken over if the distance wasn't so vast?
Wyatt Robinson
>could Hitler have won if he had infinite tanks and Superman
Distance is a huge part of war. Removing it from the equation makes a nonsense of any guesswork.
Xavier Campbell
His troops were tired.
He had relatively macedonian men left.
He was thousands of miles from his core territories.
India has mountainous and jungle terrain which is awful for invading armies.
The Indians had extremely densely populated lands, massive armies, and war elephants.
Jaxon Lewis
Different environment to Persia. Alexander would have gained victories, but only at great cost. His men were brave, but this far from home they weren't fighting for Macedonia or each other. Unless Alexander could guarantee low risk and high rewards there was nothing to motivate them.
Noah Thomas
1. India was a united land at this point under one of the biggest and most powerful empires of its history, and they had their shit together unlike Dairus
2. I reckon he still could have won, but his men wouldn't follow him anymore, he pushed them too far.
Luis Gonzalez
Would the phalanx honestly have worked in the Indian conditions though? Doesn't seem very ideal
Adrian Howard
India is the size of western Europe, it has a shit load of various terrain, it has plains, a huge desert, temperate lands, and jungle. Alexander fought in all kinds of terrain as well, and he adapted his troops to it. You don't think he was using pikemen in sieges do you?
Hudson Smith
>2. I reckon he still could have won, but his men wouldn't follow him anymore, he pushed them too far.
Nah.
1. Yeah India diverse as fuck. But the beginning portions of it were boiling hot and unlike the Indians- they were totally adjusted to it.
2. Alexander's men found it very hard to beat Poru - the small regional ruler of Punjab in a much more familiar environment than the rest of the continent. Dhana Nanda was more than 10 times as powerful.
3. Lets not forget Chandragupta Maurya, the first Emperor of India. He managed to defeat Seleucus, one of Alexander's best generals, along with his large army,
If Alexander had been foolish enough to keep carrying on, the legacy of Alexander would have turned out very differently.
It would have been massacre to say the least.
Christopher Davis
I mentioned CM because while my knowledge of SA is lacking, I know CM was an absolute beast of a general.
Evan Perry
Same reason the Romans didn't, no big cities, no big armies to fight, just small towns and lots of forest, plus Germans attacking you all the time with guerilla attacks.