Anons here really think Alexander could have taken over India and then South East Asia if his men didn't decide to turn...

>anons here really think Alexander could have taken over India and then South East Asia if his men didn't decide to turn back
>anons here have fantasies that he could have then consolidated an empire that would later conquer China in a few decades
LOL!

Go on then, tell us

>this is what you think, and you're an idiot
>I'm not gonna give you my opinion on the subject though cause I'm a bigger idiot

Why didn't he stop when he reached the Indian Ocean?

We know the reason. His men weren't willing to go further and he needed to consolidate the empire he had just finished conquering.

>We know the reason. His men weren't willing to go further
Yeah because they knew they would have gotten decimated eventually.

Neither China nor India were in anyway unified at the time, Alexander probably could have conquered them.

Always able to call on more reserves from Macedon plus ample Greek mercenaries with no one to pay them. And there's his War Dancers too.

Any of the Warring States could each summon resources and manpower which dwarfed the Macedonian army. At the far end of the world a thousand miles past the end of his supply lines, Alexander would almost certainly lose.

Alexander's empire was already starting to come apart at the seams before his illness came because he was an autist. An autist that had a bad habit of killing his best generals at the slightest offense (Cleitus and Parmenion). His men were unhappy about setting foot in India from the beginning of his campaign and there were talks about assassination even back then. What completely changed their mind was Alexander's narrow victory over that small Indian kingdom and Alexander not slaying the king after.

And everything is against Alexander taking over China. Unlike the Persians they weren't declining for a long time and had better generals than them.

He had to kill Parmenion. It was a political necessity after he executed his son. Parmenion was in a position to throttle the life out of Alexander's army once he got the news of his son's death.

Cleitus's death was admittedly rash. The man saved his life at Granicus and he fucking murdered him over a drunken argument.

actually, a huge part of India was unified. the northwestern bits were divided into hundreds of feudal kingdoms, and the South was split into a couple of rival empires, but most of the north east was unified with the Nanda empire. though they weren't as powerful as the latter mauryan and gupta empires of the same region, they were still easily been more powerful and richer than Alexander's kingdom. plus, they had almost ten thousand way elephants, which Alexander's army was especially weak against, having been almost defeated by the couple hundred war elephants in Pururavas' disposal in Punjab. the only reason he could win that battle, against a tiny feudal Lord at that, was because the Indus flooded the battlefield due to a storm and rendered the ground intraversible by Puru's elephants and chaos, while allowing Alexander to flank him without him noticing. Alex might have been able to make it too the Jamuna, but would've been absolutely decimated if he tried going any further.

>plus, they had almost ten thousand way elephants
The numbers are likely exaggerated but they still had a shit load.
>t. anybody who has basic fundamental knowledge about the Greeks

>Qin could call upon close to a million men
>While little Alex only had 50k max
Lmao eurangutangs

>Qin could call upon close to a million men
So did Persia.

And look how that turned out.

Persia was a much more powerful Empire than anything China or India could muster. If Alexander could defeat Persia with the most advanced army in the world and (arguably) history's greatest tactical general (himself) I don't see what challenge fractured India or China could muster which would stop him, if his army was willing to go on.

Obviously his army did not have the morale for it at that stage and that would have meant his campaign would have ended in failure had he gone forward with them being reluctant at best, and very probably mutinous. I'm arguing only if his army's morale had been what it had been during the Persian campaign.

Also for the person arguing for a million Chinese troops I'd argue that those numbers are inflated, and if you want to argue they aren't then according to basically every Ancient source the Persian Army at Gaugamela had over one million men. Guess who won that battle.

>Persia was a much more powerful Empire
Persia was a shithole, how else could Alexander have conquered it so fast? He needed support of the local elites and they gave zero fucks about whether they were ruled by Greeks or not.

Alexander the Great wasn't Cortez you weirdo.

He also wasn't your mom.

Top kek Carlos you cheeky little cunt. But yeah Persia was pretty much dead. All ol' Alex did was put it out of its misery.

It literally just reconquered Egypt. How was it fucking dead?!

All these "Empires" were just some guy with a huge army marching in and demanding oaths of loyality from the local elites. When the bigger guy comes along you give an oath to him.

That's a very simplistic, but not inaccurate view of the world. It applies to American hegemony too.

>It literally just reconquered Egypt. How was it fucking dead?!
7 years ago. And

>The King of Persia, Artaxerxes III, personally leads the Persian forces invading Egypt. The Persians are keen to access Egypt's gold and corn supplies. The town of Pelusium in the Nile Delta puts up resistance, but Pharaoh Nectanebo II is forced to retreat to Memphis. As the situation deteriorates, Nectanebo II leaves for exile in Nubia. His departure marks the end of the 30th Dynasty, the last native house to rule Egypt.
>With Nectanebo II's flight, all organised resistance to the Persians immediately collapses, and Egypt once again is reduced to a satrapy of the Persian Empire.

Persia is right next door to Greece, China is on the other side of the continent.

Idk about American hegemony, where do you see this manifested in the era of states?
My statement is no world formula ofc and limited to a certain stage in the life of a culture.

How is seven years a "long time ago"? Also there was the potential revolts in Asian minor which were put down more recently. How was it fucking dying, because Darius III wasn't a "real" Achaemenid?

Not him, but while it wasn't dead it was heavily declined and at the edge of it's rope.

In the sense that power is powerful and power exerts itself or else it isn't power.

Honestly if the Philippines somehow had the most advanced military in the world and a ruler who could exert that military then the Philippines would be the new world power. At the moment America is too strong for any other power to really contend with and with that they able to exert their power in an Imperialistic manner.

Also, the history of America is the history of imperialism. It starts with the thirteen colonies and them expands westward and southward until it dominates North and South America.

Read "The Greek Wars" (can't remember the author right now, drunk) he explains the "Persian Wars" up to and included the campaign of Alexander and you'll understand that Persia was by no means at the end of its rope. There's a reason they were able to exert themselves under the Seleucids quickly enough.

The point of my statement was, that the power base of a Persian monarch is able to shift easily towards his enemies.
The Amercian powerbase is the American people and the events since Napoleon have shown that a peoples don't shift easily towas the big guy.
Also we are comparing a state to a single person.

>and the events since Napoleon have shown that a peoples don't shift easily towas the big guy.

The Iraq War speaks otherwise. As do pretty much all wars in American history, barring maybe World War II and The Barbary Wars.

How big is US-control over Iraq right now?
Thought Iran was now the more influencial, although having by far less power.
I've considered the integration of the land the US have conquered in the west as a result of resettlement programmes.
I should have limited my statement to the European World.

>The Amercian powerbase is the American people and the events since Napoleon have shown that a peoples don't shift easily towas the big guy.
this statement ofc

>I should have limited my statement to the European World.

Different question there which I am not qualified to answer. Europe during the latter half of the 20th century is by no means my forte.