Why didn't Alexander keep going?

>a nobody city-state
>drown greece, persia, babylon and egypt in dead

were already fielding a pretty large army by Alexander's time and well on their way to being an italian hegemon, and during the samnite wars they were already starting the tried and true method of just mustering fucktons of men until they won. Mary Beard estimated they could muster half a million men defensively (I find this hard to believe, but I'm not a classicist and she is so who knows) in a time when Alexander was podunking around with his 50,000 in the east. Obviously not an army at the same level of professionalism, and they wouldn't be able to ship even close to that number far from home, but they could definitely drown Alexander in bodies.

Obviously if Alexander threw the combined might of Greece, Persia, Babylon and Egypt at them that's one thing, but the reality is he'd probably head over there with the sort of expeditionary force he used to conquer all those places. In that case I think he could get a bloody nose.

His men were pissed so he purposefully killed a lot of them through walking them through a big ass desert

They had yet to develop the maniple system and Alexander had much better engineers

calm down guys

Because he "won" his battle against Porus. Porus was a minor king of a region in NW India. He commanded a tiny 200 elephant army and ~20K soldiers and that struck fear into the Greek soldier's hearts.

The region beyond Porus lied the ~10x larger Nanda armies of nearly ~300K soldiers and 5,000+ elephants.

So yeah, if Alexander the great had a hard time winning against a tiny kingdom ruled by Porus, they would've been fucked hard by the Nandas further in.

It would've been a suicidal move. So they took off back home and gave up some of his territory to Porus and the others in the wake.

>but there wasn't much of a reason to do so as the Roman Republic was just a tiny backwater state at this point.

How much of a difference was there even between Alexander's Rome and Pyrrhus' Rome?

>5,000+ elephants

That sounds way to large to be true imho. Got a source?

Alexander's Rome controlled the Latium and Campania
Pyrrhus's Rome controlled all of Central Italy and had been expanding southward for some time, not to mention it had had a complete military reform

books.google.com/books?id=TtowAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=v=onepage&q&f=false#v=onepage&q&f=false

About 80,000 cavalry force, 200K infantry force, 6000 elephants, 8000 chariots.

I think this is estimating the fighting potential.

Nanda would have readily heard the news about the conquests of its neighbors to its NW. They would have been easily been ready for battle, so its not just a potential but a very probable number.

Still, phalanx on phalanx, the battle with Thebes was surprisingly close. The outnumbered theban hoplites broke the Hypaspists and forced the reserve line into action, but with friendlies milling about in front closely pursued, this breaks the cohesion of the phalanx. Had he not induced them to run by threatening their women and children with a surprise cavalry assault, he never would have won that battle.

Alexander was afraid of proper hellenic forces, otherwise why destroy Thebes? Why kill the ten thousand hoplite mercs at Guagamela who didn't fight against him and probably would have joined him in the end? He knew how to fight asymetrically against weak and dying states, how to slaughter cities that already surrendered, and honor foreign deities, but in all honesty, he was a coward.

>alexander doesn't deliberately put himself at a disadvantage in war so he is a coward

lol

One man's cowardice is another man's intelligence. There is nothing wrong with using both at same time, however there is something wrong with using only one.

Not him but Alexander certainly was not a coward. The man personally led cavalry charges, he thought he was the son of Zeus

Then he certainly can't be an intelligent person. Charging in headfast into when he's outnumbered 1 to 10 is stupid. The mutiny against him showed him that.

There were plenty of intelligent men in Macedonia. They died as bakers, or as blacksmiths or as farmers.
Nobody remembers them.
Courage and charisma > intelligence

The Greeks discovered Buddhism in India so they stopped being violent.

The Rome at Pyrrhus' time was also militarily tough, they alreayd crushed the Oscans and Samnites who were tough hill people who thaught the romans, the manipular system after they lost a few battles against the Samnites and then beat the Samnites silly.

Their growing influence in southern italy, then called Magna Graceia especially their supposed treaty with the small greek colony of Thurii, really pissed off the big boy greek city of Tarentum.

Tarentine felt offended that the fellow greeks chose TRVE ROMANS over greeks so Appian claims :

>"they held its citizens chiefly to blame for the Romans overpassing the limits [of the treaty]. Then they expelled the noblest citizens of Thurii, sacked the city, and dismissed the Roman garrison that was stationed there under a treaty."

This led to a fleet being sent to the Calabrian coast by the senate accompanied and led by Gaius Fabricus Luscinius to checkout what was happening, they were either sunk or captured.

Which led to a rise in tensions and the Romans paused the operations of mopping up the Samnites and began to prepare for war against Tarentum,. Which inturn led to them asking for help from Pyrrhus.

Because supplying an army, even if it's relatively small, is extremely complicated, even with modern technology.

Imagine trying to resupply with horses - and these were small horses, mind you. Can't be done. That's why it's so amazing he went as far as he did.

In WW2 the wehrmacht relied heavily on horses for supply.

Dividing the Spoils by Robin Waterfield is a good narrative history of the break up and a good way to introduce yourself to the topic.

Antigonus did nothing wrong, Cassander is a cunt

A lot of it is the result of one butthurt Persiaboo desu

>So yeah, if Alexander the great had a hard time winning against a tiny kingdom ruled by Porus, they would've been fucked hard by the Nandas further in.
You're not explaining it properly. Alexander had very little chance to conquer India because the thick forest of India would be terrible for a Phalanx.

As well as fighting power. Most of the Greek scholars wrote about how Alexander's troops were more well trained but how India had superior 'technology' i.e arrow's were capable of sailing right through Roman armor (and iirc shield too). The direct description straight from Arrian's accounts talks about it.
> "The foot soldiers carry a bow made of equal length with the man who bears it. This they rest upon the ground, and pressing against it with their left foot thus discharges the arrow, having drawn the string far backwards for the shaft they use is little short for three yards long, and there is nothing can resist an Indian archer's shot, neither shield nor breast plate, nor any stronger defence if such there be."[

In his battle with Porus, the Indian's were at a large disadvantage from being outnumbered, out-trained and most importantly- the heavy rain eliminated their ability to use their bow's properly. It's the main reason why that Porus, despite having a somewhat larger and more powerful army than most kingdoms before, had a much shittier kill count than previous Indian states.

Not to mention the Indians fought dirty and used poison in their arrows

>fighting dirty
kek

I wonder if Rome vs Han fight ever come, would the Romans call Han fighting dirty when they use fire arrows against their shield formations?

Even if he could have successfully went futher, which is doubtful, what's the point of grabbing more land than you can administer given technology levels and political realities?

Nah, because in real life fire arrows are of little use against heavy infantry.

Every culture would consider the ways of war of another culture barbaric, because the ancient "rules" of warfare were highly dependent on the region.

The Greeks considered the Romans barbaric, because in the "civilized" Greek way of fighting, you fought one battle that decided things, then surrendered if you lost because that's what civilized people do. The Romans lost, then formed another army, and came back for seconds. If they lost that one too, they would form yet another army, leading to far higher war deaths than in Greek vs Greek fighting.

>tens of thousands of fire arrows on your infantry's path
>smoke cover the entire battlefield and kill your tightly and densely defended shield formations
>B-but bruh TESTUDO FORMATION is invisible against carbon monoxide poison

>>wind blows the smoke over your own troops and they proceed to suffocate
Nice try ching chong. Not to mention this whole thing assumes really dry weather that will allow a large enough fire to get going in the first place, which is no guarantee. An iron blade through some stupid chink's abdomen is a guarantee of one less ching chong wing wonging it the fuck up though.

>Roman army's flying iron blade that flies 200 meters into Ching chong army
>Roman god of wind teleports smoke from Roman infantry to ching chong's crossbowmen's ranks
Wew

The Chinese had crossbows by about 100 BC, which could punch through the scutum, which is a relatively thin shield. Accounts from Carrae say that the Parthian composite bows could pierce the scutum, which means crossbows would have even less trouble.

Here's a conspiracy theory for you:

Alexander's body was nabbed by Ptolemy who had it carted off and interred in Alexandria in Egypt. It was a well known tourist attraction since, well, a lot of people viewed him as a god. Fast forward hundreds of years and the Christians fuck everything up. The conspiracy becomes pretty weird here but follow me on this.

So, Christians go around Alexandria and torch up all the pagan shit. Well, right after that a big ass church appears in people's writings describing this church as where St Mark is buried. Thing is there is no writings before this found about St Mark being buried in Alexandria. Fast forward some more and the Muslims move in and the Venetians, who venerate St Mark as their patron, want his body out of the now muslim-held lands of Egypt. Breaking into the church, they cart the body away covered in dead pigs to scare the muslims away.

They get the body back to Venice and inter it in St Mark's Basilica. The twist is that some believe that the church that appeared in Alexandria was the temple to Alexander with the name chiseled off. The remains within would be of Alexander, not St Mark the Evangelist and therefore the remains in St Mark's Basilica are those of Alexander.

Weird huh?

most of persia is desert
europe is pretty much all grassland

Is there anything the eternal Venetian can't ruin?

Yeah see this has sweet fuck and all to do with fire arrows, and armor piercing arrows didn't stop the roman legions from reaching the persian gulf. The main thing that would protect the chinese from a properly roman skull-fucking and torso-stabbing would be distance. China was too far away from Rome and vice-versa for any meaningful interaction to occur.

Idk about India but the first guy who conquered it met Alexander and said that had he not turned back he could have been the master of all India.

Because the Indians posed too much trouble for his armies.

Ptolemy a shit Seleucus a GOAT

>but the first guy who conquered it met Alexander
>and said that had he not turned back he could have been the master of all India.
Ehh take it with a grain of salt.
Greeks were in India for the first time in history and if there were accounts of Indian nobles (not merchants) going through the Achmenaid empire to meet the Greeks we would know.

Alexander toppled the Achaemenids, definetly one of the greatest feats ever accomplished in Western History especially considering their relative time periods.

India was a completely different matter on the other hand. It was big, it was crowded, and it was on the other side of the world. I think it's highly doubtful Alexander could have ever pushed farther than he did especially considering that he would've immediatly bumped into the rising Chandragupta Maurya at the time.

The Indus Valley at the time wasn't even that prominent at the time (save for Taxilla) and could in no way compare to the militaristic capability of Maghada and the Ganges Plain that was just down the stream.

In short Alex wouldve got BTFO'd if he went any further and he knew it.

People are heavily overestimating the power of those Indian armies though
>But muh manpower and war elephants
Yeah of course, but the Persians could throw insane nummers as well. Of course it would have been more difficult for the Greeks because it was literally at the end of the world, but if Alexander would invade India a couple.of years later with a fresh army I definitely give him a chance, Menander did basically the same and BTFO'ed the whole Ganges plain

Reminder that the House of Ptolemy are slaves to latin barbarians!

>People are heavily overestimating the power of those Indian armies though
It's not just the army. It's the terrain (fauna and flora) too, (one of the reasons Russia is near unconquerable in winter). Macedonians tried adapting to it but they just couldn't very well then.

>Menander did basically the same and BTFO'ed the whole Ganges plain
Wasn't that after the Maurya empire fell apart into a pile of petty kingdoms?

Ironically they resisted a much larger invasion from the Seceulid empire a few centuries before.

If Rome at it's peak couldn't annex all of Persia then what chance did they have with a more powerful China?

Rome never wanted to annex Persia. The fuck are you talking about?

Annexing a place and beating the armies of that place are two different things. This is especially so when the place in question is very distant from your own lands.

You pretty much couldn't be a general of Hellenes and not lead from the front.

"Hellenistic World" by Bugh

While it sounds like a reasonably good movie plot, is there any evidence?

Persia is grassland.

>not supporting the claim of Seleukos Nicator
I shiggy diggy

everyone had enough of war and didn't see the monkey tribes worth dying for

don't believe pajeet lies, they never defeated alexander, ever

>if Alexander the great had a hard time winning against a tiny kingdom ruled by Porus, they would've been fucked hard by the Nandas further in.

This is the lies pajeets tell their kids

buthhurt persian detected

It's literally what Plutarch wrote?

Alexander never lost a battle.

America never lost a war either.

I didn't say that.
But Plutarch did write about how due to the fight against Porus was one of the hardest his soldiers had ever had and how they had to give it their all to defeat them and how the Nanda Empire dwarved Porus.

>vietnam