This is likely the first major "what-if" alt-scenario ever posed in history, originally pondered by Livy. What if Alexander had turned his attention West, assuming he A) survived longer than he did, or B) decided against venturing further and further east and set upon the entirety of the Mediterranean instead.
Alexander vs Rome
Lucas Williams
Other urls found in this thread:
ancient.eu
twitter.com
Austin Lewis
>conquering a lot of undeveloped poor lands filled with savages
Yeah, no.
Robert Williams
He definitely could have beaten early 4th century Rome; these were the same people who lost decisively to the Cisalpine Guals.
The real question, at least to me, is what happens when Alexander does die and the empire fragments. How far does Rome get sucked into the Hellenic orbit? Will they immediately (or ever) throw off whomever is set over as their governor? Does that sort of proto-nationalism civic strength which was the hallmark of the republic survive Greek occupation?
Mason Mitchell
At that time he would have crushed Rome. But put Alexander in charge of the armies of Mithridates and Romes gets fucked
Noah Jackson
There were only savages to the east after he defeated Persia too but yet he kept going east.
Kayden Allen
is this really true though?
I know we like to talk about mudhuts etc on Veeky Forums, but Gauls had villages, farms, and was a major threat to Rome in the early years
they even sacked the city once
and Germans, the "snown*ggers" of the north, had agriculture, iron age technologies, villages and settlements etc
they weren't living in caves
I think they could have mounted some resistance to Alexander, but there's obviously a power level difference
Thomas Russell
That's exactly what Alexander did once he finished up effectively hijacking the empire from Darius after sending him fleeing into the hills.
Back on topic though, Rome contemporaneous to Alexander was off and away on the path to military dominance. They were hardy and seasoned warriors with a familiarity in vicious warfare with their surrounding neighbors, who at this time would already have been "subdued". Early Roman history is permeated with uncertainty and fabrication made even harder to decipher by discrepancies in language. For example, in early Latin, the word for foreigner was the same as the word for enemy. Similarly, we don't know for sure if Rome "subduing" its neighbors meant an outright annexation, a formation of a tributary society, or an alliance. What is known is that through war or diplomacy the majority of tribes in central Italy at this time paid homage to Rome in the form of manpower/soldiers sent to serve Rome's interest.
But, this system of conscription formed the backbone of a relatively well organized army led by an array of competent generals. As Livy suggests, and current record supports, the Romans would have VASTLY outnumbered Alexander's army. The reason for early Rome's military success was that they could afford to lose battles repeatedly as in the long run their sheer numbers and ability to roll with the punches meant they could win the larger scale conflict/war.
Isaiah Flores
>Lost decisively to Cisalpine Gauls
Who in their own right were a warrior society bringing to the forefront an array of innovative arms and armor that quickly spread in use across the world. They were a people with a deep and intimate familiarity with war and combat, by no means a primitive group of shit-slinging ooga boogas. Regardless the circumstances surrounding the Battle of the Aillia and the subsequent sack of Rome are something of uncertainty.
Jordan Perez
"Warrior societies" are a dime a dozen. The Hellenic (Especially Macedonian and post-Macedonian) system of war was rightly feared all throughout the world for its effectiveness, and there's a reason that Greek colonies, Greek culture, and the Greek way of fighting, which the Romans were aping at that time, went just about everywhere.
Some 50ish years later, the Romans would have a damn tough time fending off Pyrrhus, which was fighting against a still stronger Roman state and with far fewer resources to work with. Now instead of a decent army but without any meaningful local support or a reliable supply chain back to his homelands, you're facing a far bigger, far more professional, and far more organized force, with absolute naval dominance ensuring that they can send a supply train right up to the gates of Rome and keep it there indefinitely.
The idea that Rome could face off against Alexander's Empire circa 320 B.C. is laughable.
Carson Rodriguez
Well he conquered Afghanistan which was exactly that, a shithole.
Bentley Gonzalez
Romans were actually moving away from the phalanx system and were adopting the maniple system. It's hard to gauge accurate dates and measurements when it comes to Roman military developments but it's generally agreed that during the Samnite Wars, which were occurring around the time this aforementioned alternative-history showdown would occur, were formative in the introduction of distinct staples of military tactics associated with the Roman Republic.
On top of this new system, Roman troops were now being outfitted with advanced weaponry and armor such as mail, and their signature shield/gladius combo and javelins.
In discussing Phyhrrus, I remain unconvinced as the wars serve as a model to how I'd imagine conflict with Alexander could potentially go down. Going into the Pyrrhic war, Rome was coming straight out of the Samnite Wars, which up until this point was the largest military conflict in Roman history against its as of yet most formidable opponent. Rome was also contending with open hostilities from the Tarentines in the south. The situation in Italy was already a mess before Pyrrus showed up with an army that could hardly be discounted relative to Alexander's, as he arrived with some of the most formidable mercenaries in Greece as well as elephants.
In talking about this, it's clear that an array of other factions would be involved in the event Alexander invaded Italy. Carthage, interestingly enough, would almost certainly side with Rome due to Alexander's brutal annexation of Tyre. This would absolutely negate Alexander's naval dominance. I'd be skeptical of any committed Greek support for Alexander as well, given the constant revolts and anti-Macedonian rhetoric that was propagated 24/7 during the time of Alexander and his father.
Luis Diaz
>Romans were actually moving away from the phalanx system and were adopting the maniple system.
Not until the second Samnite war, some 30 years after Alexander died.
> but it's generally agreed that during the Samnite Wars, which were occurring around the time this aforementioned alternative-history showdown would occur, were formative in the introduction of distinct staples of military tactics associated with the Roman Republic.
You have a much looser notion of "around that time" than I do.
>On top of this new system, Roman troops were now being outfitted with advanced weaponry and armor such as mail, and their signature shield/gladius combo and javelins.
I don't give a shit. Organization is way more important than what weapons you arm your people with, and the Romans were still using a 2 legions, comprised of levied militia men against a career army that would dwarf them in size.
>In discussing Phyhrrus, I remain unconvinced as the wars serve as a model
It isn't a model. It's a means of showing that there is no fucking way the Romans could beat Alexander, because they were facing an opponent far weaker than Alexander with themselves in a far stronger position than they were in around 320.
>Carthage, interestingly enough, would almost certainly side with Rome due to Alexander's brutal annexation of Tyre.
Please show your evidence that Carthage gave a rat's ass what was going on in Tyre.
>This would absolutely negate Alexander's naval dominance.
And how you got to this. Carthage could barely beat Syracuse on the water at around this time, let alone "The entire fucking Greek world".
>I'd be skeptical of any committed Greek support for Alexander as well,
Other than, you know, the massive contingent of Greek troops that formed the backbone both of his army and the Diodochi armies after him.
Logan Martin
>Please show your evidence that Carthage gave a rat's ass what was going on in Tyre.
I think better reason for Carthage to side with Rome against Alexander would, again be found in Pyrrhus. Pyrrhus managed to bring forth sort of an alliance of convenience between the two as king of Epirus was fucking with both Rome and Sicily. And Alexander would be on warpath to conquer fucking everyone in western Med.
Nolan Peterson
Are we assuming that Alexander is going after everyone in the region? Let's face it, it's not like Alexander didn't make significant inroads among the people he historically went attacking. A lot of those vassal kingdoms of the Persian empire went very willingly into his coalition, and with the right kind of diplomacy (exact permutations are difficult to contemplate given we don't have a firm setting as to how this campaign started or what its objectives are) it's very easy to see a set of local alliances popping up, of which Carthage is certainly a possibility, although probably only if he was more openly hostile to Carthage's rivals in the area (probably Syracuse at the time)
Liam Lewis
Why do you feel the need to be a condescending dickhead?
>Not until the second Samnite war, some 30 years after Alexander died.
Alexander died in 323 BC, the Second Samnite War was fought from 326 BC-304 BC. On top of having your dates wrong if you truly believe sweeping military reform in the ancient world happened neatly in a condensed set of years you're an idiot. There was definitely a clear precedent set from the Samnites who served as the basis for the change, and who had lived in close proximity to Rome for a long time.
>I don't give a shit. Organization is way more important than what weapons you arm your people with, and the Romans were still using a 2 legions, comprised of levied militia men against a career army that would dwarf them in size.
It's ironic to me that you're arguing this point in favor of Alexander, whose success came from the reforms of his father who emphasized the effectiveness of fighting in organized phalanxes armed with sarissas in conjunction with cavalry. The sarissa was paramount to Macedonia's success, as without it they'd have absolutely nothing to negate the massive advantages heavily armored Greek hoplites would have had.
>A career army that would dwarf them in size.
Again, wrong. Rome had far more manpower to draw upon then Alexander's army, which at its height prior to Guagamela was said to number around 50,000. If we're keeping with Rome around the time of the second Samnite War, the earlier institution in which Rome drew upon its Latin allies for voluntary support had been replaced with a new system that called upon non-Latin allies as well, socii.
>It isn't a model. It's a means of showing that there is no fucking way the Romans could beat Alexander, because they were facing an opponent far weaker than Alexander with themselves in a far stronger position than they were in around 320.
I had just explained to you why their position was not far stronger at the time of Pyrrhus' invasion.
Oliver Johnson
>Why do you feel the need to be a condescending dickhead?
Because you're posting nonsense and expecting to be taken seriously.
>believe sweeping military reform in the ancient world happened neatly in a condensed set of years you're an idiot
Yeah, because we don't totally have actual evidence of the such happening elsewhere, like the wholesale reforms of the Attic military during the Peloponesean wars, or the creation of the Macedonian professional army in a very short timeframe.
>It's ironic to me that you're arguing this point in favor of Alexander, whose success came from the reforms of his father who emphasized the effectiveness of fighting in organized phalanxes armed with sarissas in conjunction with cavalry.
How is ANY of that relevant to what I said? Can you fucking read?
>The sarissa was paramount to Macedonia's success, as without it they'd have absolutely nothing to negate the massive advantages heavily armored Greek hoplites would have had.
You are stupid. You know what would be a good way to negate the "massive advantages" (please cite to where you're drawing the notion that contemporary hoplites had heavier armor than Macedonian phlaginites) had? How about the training and ability to maneuver in separate formations instead of "we all just run forward" which was the standard for pre-macedonian greeks? The ability to manevuer your infantry surely isn't that important, right?
>Again, wrong.
No, it's right.
>Rome had far more manpower to draw upon then Alexander's army, which at its height prior to Guagamela was said to number around 50,000.
There are zero reliable mentions of the Romans fielding more than 4 legions prior to about 260 B.C. 4 legions is about 24,000 men, with auxiliaries, it can rise up to 30,000ish. That's much smaller than what Alexander could and did field. Where the fuck did you learn to count?
>I had just explained to you why their position was not far stronger at the time of Pyrrhus' invasion.
Very stupidly.
Lincoln Torres
By the way, I'm still waiting for your citations on numerous bits where I asked it, such as the Carthaginians being predisposed towards hating Alexander over the annexation of Tyre, or that they could negate Alexander's naval dominance, or the "Constant revolts" of the Greeks against Alexander's rule.
Hudson Gray
(cont.)
>Please show your evidence that Carthage gave a rat's ass what was going on in Tyre.
Because Carthage recognized Tyre as its mother city home to fellow Phoenicians and actively accepted evacuees from Tyre? If you'd like a more comprehensive view on Carthaginian/Macedonian relations I'd recommend Philip Freeman's work on Alexander. It gives an overview of how Alexander had ambitions of conquering North Africa and subjugating Carthage.
>And how you got to this. Carthage could barely beat Syracuse on the water at around this time, let alone "The entire fucking Greek world".
What the fuck are you talking about? The Sicilian Wars a hundred years before this?
>Other than, you know, the massive contingent of Greek troops that formed the backbone both of his army and the Diodochi armies after him.
The Foot Companions were primarily Macedonian first and foremost. Also if you can't make note of the distinction between recruiting men to serve in an army and the very real homegrown revolts among the Greek aristocracy and nobility you're a fucking idiot.
Charles Johnson
>Because Carthage recognized Tyre as its mother city home to fellow Phoenicians and actively accepted evacuees from Tyre?
That proves absolutely nothing. See the acceptance of Shi'ite refugees from Ottoman persecution by the Safavids in the 16th century, the acceptance of Jewish refugees from Portugal in the Spanish netherlands. That's why we see those political entities siding against the expelling state in wars (oh wait, we don't).
>If you'd like a more comprehensive view on Carthaginian/Macedonian relations I'd recommend Philip Freeman's work on Alexander. It gives an overview of how Alexander had ambitions of conquering North Africa and subjugating Carthage.
No, I want something proving that Carthage would be predisposed to attacking Alexander over what he did in Tyre, which is what you fucking claimed.
>What the fuck are you talking about?
Yes, what the fuck are you talking about? Please show me how Carthage could field a fleet capable of contesting the waters with the resources Alexander had available.
>The Foot Companions were primarily Macedonian first and foremost.
And all those troops that the League of Corinth provided? The various Greek mercenaries he was always hiring? The 30,000 troops that never got deployed that Plutarch mentions? The entirety of his fucking fleet? The armies of the Antigonids during the Diodochi wars? (By the way, how is it that these conflicts feature battles like Ipsus with combined troop totals of over 150,000, but the Romans are going to have the "manpower advantage" going up against a unified Alexandrian empire?)
Zachary Perry
>Yeah, because we don't totally have actual evidence of the such happening elsewhere, like the wholesale reforms of the Attic military during the Peloponesean wars, or the creation of the Macedonian professional army in a very short timeframe.
The point I was getting at is that military reform is something that has a precedent and a series of influences and is not always something that happens wholesale in a short amount of time. Even with the example you gave there were a series of factors leading up to the creation of the Macedonian army, leading from Philip's observations of the Hoplites of Thebes to the fledgling periods of pike-levies learning the ropes against warring tribes along the Danube. The point is that the organized unit of foot companions is not something that happened with a snap of the fucking fingers.
>How is ANY of that relevant to what I said? Can you fucking read?
If you weren't a fucking brainlet you'd realize the whole point was that the sarissa, a WEAPON, was a fundamental part of Alexander and Philip's success. You were downplaying the importance of arms and armor when the ancient world is filled with examples of societies making strides in military technology and subsequently wrecking shit from the Assyrians to Alexander.
>"massive advantages" (please cite to where you're drawing the notion that contemporary hoplites had heavier armor than Macedonian phlaginites) had?
These massive advantages came in the form of superior equipment that the Greeks could afford to field whereas Philip couldn't. If you had a semblance of contextual reasoning you'd be recognize I was referring to the early Macedonian army under Philip which was still poorly equipped and disciplined in relation to what they would later become. What made the difference was their tactics formed around the sarissa.
Jeremiah Phillips
>The point I was getting at is that military reform is something that has a precedent and a series of influences and is not always something that happens wholesale in a short amount of time. Even with the example you gave there were a series of factors leading up to the creation of the Macedonian army, leading from Philip's observations of the Hoplites of Thebes to the fledgling periods of pike-levies learning the ropes against warring tribes along the Danube. The point is that the organized unit of foot companions is not something that happened with a snap of the fucking fingers.
None of this is relevant to the point, namely that the Macedonian system of war is ENORMOUSLY more advanced, organized, and professional than what the Romans are fielding. Furthermore, your talking primarily about the equipment fielded (starting off with your points about the cisapline gauls) misses the essential of what makes military reforms work in favor of a focus on the trivial.
>If you weren't a fucking brainlet you'd realize the whole point was that the sarissa, a WEAPON, was a fundamental part of Alexander and Philip's success
Yes, and a stupid ass point it is, which overlooks the other, far more important factors that led to Alexandrian success, like professional troops, combined arms, shock cavalry, the existence of a corps of siege engineers, and at least a rudimentary quartermaster system.
>You were downplaying the importance of arms and armor when the ancient world is filled with examples of societies making strides in military technology and subsequently wrecking shit from the Assyrians to Alexander.
I like how you point out the Assyrians, who at the height of the Neo-Assyrian empire were using the exact same kinds of arms and armor that all of their neighbors were. What set them apart was their professionalism and organizational skill.
1/2
Parker Perry
>these massive advantages came in the form of superior equipment that the Greeks could afford to field whereas Philip couldn't.
Yes, I heard you the first fucking time. Now actually CITE it.
> you had a semblance of contextual reasoning you'd be recognize I was referring to the early Macedonian army under Philip which was still poorly equipped and disciplined in relation to what they would later become.
That is completely irrelevant when you are claiming that the Greeks had better equipment than the Macedonian phaganites, and not that the Macedonians of Phillips day had worse equipment than the Macedonians of Alexander's. Furthermore, it is completely wrong , and if you did any reading whatsoever on classical Greek warfare, you'd know that the trend was towards lighter and lighter armor, not the reverse.
> What made the difference was their tactics formed around the sarissa.
No, what made it different is the stuff mentioned in the above post. Combined arms, siege equipment and engineers, the training and discipline that enabled them to actually maneuver in battle instead of just charging onward.
Lincoln Powell
>That proves absolutely nothing
It proves that Carthage "gave a rat's ass what was going on in Tyre". Thanks for impressing us with your list of separate instances in history in which refugees were accepted though. Which also was fucking stupid seeing as how Carthaginians and Tyrians were the same people with a shared heritage.
>No, I want something proving that Carthage would be predisposed to attacking Alexander over what he did in Tyre, which is what you fucking claimed.
How about Carthage's delegations to Alexander, which failed, and the fact that at the time of his death Alexander was raising a fucking fleet to attack them. This was due in part to Alexander's anger with Carthage for their assistance to the Tyrians.
>Yes, what the fuck are you talking about? Please show me how Carthage could field a fleet capable of contesting the waters with the resources Alexander had available.
Alexander had the combined naval power of "the entire fucking Greek world" at Tyre and he still had to build a fucking land bridge because his men had absolutely no naval prowess at all. Persian officials were also wrecking havoc across the Aegean during his time, to which he could do almost nothing about.
Juan Wright
>Macedonians were more organized
Yeah I'm really frothing at the mouth at the idea of a military command structure so organized and disciplined that following the death of its posterboy the entire thing collapsed.
>focus on the trivial
Who said anything about that? Military reforms go hand in hand with new weapons and tactics, these aren't mutually exclusive things.
>Yes, and a stupid ass point it is, which overlooks the other, far more important factors that led to Alexandrian success, like professional troops, combined arms, shock cavalry, the existence of a corps of siege engineers, and at least a rudimentary quartermaster system.
Me claiming the importance of one facet of Macedon's success is in no way me disparaging the importance of other factors.
>Neo-Assyrians
The point about them was that their iron weapons, in conjunction with their professional and disciplined troops, stomped shit.
Aiden Edwards
>cite pls
I've given you the secondary source in which I'm basing these claims off of already. As much as it'd tickle you for me to dig around in the book sitting on my shelf, I'm too fucking lazy. I hardly understand why you're getting hung up on this point when it's a known fact that the Macedonians early in Philip's time were predominantly tribal sheepherders, I'm confused as to how you think such a people could field troops with arms and armor equivalent to the Sacred Band of fucking Thebes.
>Philip's army of barbarian sheepfuckers having better equipment than Greeks
Go read a book kiddo.
Ryder Walker
>Which also was fucking stupid seeing as how Carthaginians and Tyrians were the same people with a shared heritage.
Yes, and as we all know, people with shared heritages ALWAYS support each other when someone goes to war with third parties.
>Alexander had the combined naval power of "the entire fucking Greek world" at Tyre and he still had to build a fucking land bridge because his men had absolutely no naval prowess at all.
You do realize that the causeway's construction was only possible because of his fleet covering the engineers, right? And how after Alexander mustered up his own fleet the Tyrians retired from the sea and blokcaded their own harbors up? And that ALL of this happens before Alexander's own major building program for his fleet?
Gavin Rivera
>Yes, and as we all know, people with shared heritages ALWAYS support each other when someone goes to war with third parties.
Well in this case yeah they did seeing as how this shared heritage extended to Tyre being viewed as a "mother city" and the immense efforts Carthage took to alleviate the siege.
>Alexander having fun at Tyre
Yeah he had a lot of ships to draw from, and the land bridge came as a result of his inability to break through the Tyrian's blockade or lead an assault on the walls from sea. It's also interesting that you were so autisticly denying collaboration between Carthage and Tyre then go on to cite some website in which that information is laid out.
Jonathan Hill
This myth that Phoenicians or Greeks were supportive of eachother is pure bullshit, when Carthage became power hungry they had no problem attacking and destroying the Phoenician cities in Sardinia and Sicily
Wyatt Reed
>Yeah I'm really frothing at the mouth at the idea of a military command structure so organized and disciplined that following the death of its posterboy the entire thing collapsed.
The EMPIRE collapsed. THe military structure did not, which is why the Diodochi empires were continuing to use it (with minor modifications) for centuries.
>Who said anything about that?
You, repeatedly.
>Military reforms go hand in hand with new weapons and tactics, these aren't mutually exclusive things.
No, but they are often unrelated. You're the exact same sort of person who can't understand why the Germans won the battle of France so quickly and easily in 1940; after all, the French tanks were mostly better than the PZ2 that filled most of th tank inventory of the wehramcht.
>Me claiming the importance of one facet of Macedon's success is in no way me disparaging the importance of other factors.
You claimed, and I quote
>If you weren't a fucking brainlet you'd realize the whole point was that the sarissa, a WEAPON, was a fundamental part of Alexander and Philip's success.
>The sarissa was paramount to Macedonia's success, as without it they'd have absolutely nothing to negate the massive advantages heavily armored Greek hoplites would have had.
They certainly seem to be disparaging other points.
>The point about them was that their iron weapons, in conjunction with their professional and disciplined troops, stomped shit.
The point is that by that time, everyone had iron weapons. They were not winning because of better equipment. They were winning because of better non-equipment factors, and to claim that their rise to power was because of superior equipment is unsupported.
1/2
Grayson Brooks
Why not?
Britain did it and they're very proud of it
Owen Lee
>I've given you the secondary source in which I'm basing these claims off of already.
I haven't seen one. And if we're just name dropping books, I'll throw in A War Like No Other to throw in the point that most Greek hoplites were not particularly well equipped, especially by the end and post Peloponesean war. These were, after all, mostly farmers paying for their own equipment. They had a shield, a spear, a sword, and usually some linen armor. That was not exactly top of the line shit.
> I'm confused as to how you think such a people could field troops with arms and armor equivalent to the Sacred Band of fucking Thebes.
This just in: The Sacred Band was not representative of the normal hoplite in the Greek world.
>Go read a book kiddo.
I have. Funnily enough, none of the classical military historians I've read, from Bury to Hansen to Goldsworthy, ever mention that the Greeks furhter south had better equipment in their phalanxes than the Macedonians did.
>Well in this case yeah they did seeing as how this shared heritage extended to Tyre being viewed as a "mother city" and the immense efforts Carthage took to alleviate the siege.
What immense effort? Promising a fleet that never arrives? Such an enormous hardship.
>Yeah he had a lot of ships to draw from, and the land bridge came as a result of his inability to break through the Tyrian's blockade
There was no Tyrian blockade.
>or lead an assault on the walls from sea.
Because amphibious assaults are hard. Again, I can point to numerous other operations from Gallipoli to Santa Cruz de Tenerife to the first assault on Wake Island as evidence of that. None of those attackers had naval inferiority at the time of the landing.
>. It's also interesting that you were so autisticly denying collaboration between Carthage and Tyre then go on to cite some website in which that information is laid out.
Please learn to read.
Ryder Jackson
Is meant in reply to and And since I have a bit more space, allow me to elaborate on this last point.
>. It's also interesting that you were so autisticly denying collaboration between Carthage and Tyre then go on to cite some website in which that information is laid out.
No, what I was denying is that Carthage would go all muh ethnic heritage and jump headfirst into a war with Alexander while he was attacking Rome, solely because of what was going on in Tyre. That you so badly mis-state my argument leads me to suspect you are either incredibly dumb, or are not being intellectually honest here.
Anthony Ortiz
>The military command structure of Alexander's forces and his empire not being intimately linked
>A a litany of his previous officials ranging from his closest companions to the first guy he appointed as satrap over an Asian holding vying for control in one of the messiest conflicts in history is evidence that Macedonians were organized.
>Getting hung up on this weapon debate when I think we can both agree that in certain cases, such as in Macedon and Rome, the arms and equipment of a military force are very important.
>Neo-Assyrians conquering their enemies by force and warfare is not evidence that their iron weapons and military organization made them good at war
>Making generalizations about an array of people across Greece when the whole point of this topic was that Macedonia was objectively less developed and sophisticated than the premier Greek poleis.
>Sacred Band was mentioned because they directly inspired Philip and his reforms
>Wow u read books?
>Taking in mass amounts of refugees and sending a fleet that was blocked off by Alexander's fleet isn't an immense effort
>Tyrian blockade refers to them blockading their own port from entry
>Yeah amphibious assaults are hard but if Alexander had such an esteemed navy he should've been able to sail right into the port right
Jackson Williams
>The military command structure of Alexander's forces and his empire not being intimately linked
They weren't. That's why the command structure persisted even when the empire collapsed.
>A a litany of his previous officials ranging from his closest companions to the first guy he appointed as satrap over an Asian holding vying for control in one of the messiest conflicts in history is evidence that Macedonians were organized.
>Getting hung up on this weapon debate when I think we can both agree that in certain cases, such as in Macedon and Rome, the arms and equipment of a military force are very important.
>Neo-Assyrians conquering their enemies by force and warfare is not evidence that their iron weapons and military organization made them good at war
Are you deliberately making strawmen, or did you completely miss the point?
>when the whole point of this topic was that Macedonia was objectively less developed and sophisticated than the premier Greek poleis.
They weren't.
>Sacred Band was mentioned because they directly inspired Philip and his reforms
But you were mentioning them as a point to point comparison of EQUIPMENT of the Macedonian phlaganite vs the Greek hoplite.
>Taking in mass amounts of refugees and sending a fleet that was blocked off by Alexander's fleet isn't an immense effort
It really isn't, especially since there was no mention of Alexander trying to stop people from getting out.
>Tyrian blockade refers to them blockading their own port from entry
So according to you, a raised chain is the height of naval dominance?
>Yeah amphibious assaults are hard but if Alexander had such an esteemed navy he should've been able to sail right into the port right
I never at any point claimed that and you are an idiot.
I'm through responding to you; you're either too dumb to understand nuance or you're baiting. I'm guessing the latter.
Andrew Martin
>these were the same people who lost decisively to the Cisalpine Guals
Let's not forget that the greeks themselves got raped pretty hard by another Brennus.
The gauls were no fucking joke, they were the mercenary force of choice for mediterranean cultures throughout antiquity for a reason.