"Fuck Persia."

"Fuck Persia."

- Alexander the Great, 334 BC

"Fuck men"
- OP, 2018 AD

This was a good thread. Well done. Much kek.

"I'm a faggot"
- OP, circa today.

let's get this thread back on track
why didn't Alexander go west?

Because it was seen as a complete cultural and economic backwater with nothing of worth, whereas the east was where basically everything of prosperity and relevance was.

>Rome was backwater
>Syracuse was backwater
>Carthage was backwater

pre-islamic persia is a cool

He would have done, after he had finished with Persia and Arabia, but then he died instead.

Once he got done conquering Susa and Persepolis, there was absolutely nothing worth venturing East for. He spent the rest of his time fucking with squabbling mountain and steppe tribes before he got to India, which in it of itself wasn't worth the effort either.

I like how the map explains the wewuzzing nature of Pajeets who now call themselves Indians lel.

Are you actually implying that Rome WASN'T a relative backwater in the 330s BC? Memphis and Babylon would have been far more enticing to anyone around in that era.

Alexander probably would've failed if he tried taking on Rome.

Except Persia was knocking at his door, and his father had "founded" the League of Corinth to unite Greeks and was aiming at Persia, the fat hog ready for the slaughter. The League listed the destruction of the persian capital as part of the demands in order for Phillip and Alexander to have "legitimacy" (in response to the Persian sack of Athens some 250 years prior).

Alexander's father was planning a persian expedition anyways, and in terms of an immediate threat it would make sense. Darius was dealing with civil wars prior to the conquest, and he would have either a) threw lots of money to a side that resented Macedonian overlords b)may have even launched an army to send in to try and quell the threat c) tried to assassinate Alexander, which is suggested may have happened to Phillip.

Also because Alexander wanted glory, and conquering the most civilized and prosperous civilization you can imagine would be probably an easy target over choosing a mercantile trading empire, filthy celts, and a bunch of italian tribes. The west could wait, since they weren't united. The East could not

>Alexander probably would've failed if he tried taking on Rome.
kek, yeah sure thing romaboo

Romans contemporaneous to Alexander would have had superior arms and armor, a larger base of manpower from the subjugation of Italian tribes, and the subsequent agreements drawn up mandating a supply of troops.

Also literally all it would take to defeat Alexander's empire would be to kill him in battle.

"Screw Bulgaria and Byzantium and Venice and Albania and Hungary and the Timurids and the Timurids made up states"
- Mehmet 2 the qonquerer, 1479

Dude, I'm a huge fucking Romaboo. Get your head straight, because the Roman state was probably no bigger than 1/8 of all Italy by 328 B.C., and Alexander is easily the most tactically brilliant general in all of history. Not to mention the Romans were using tactics not dissimilar to the greek phalanx, so you couldn't even rely on manipular flexibility to outflank em.

Are you fucking high?

Tell that to Darius

>Alexander is easily the most tactically brilliant general in all of history

plebs get out reeeeeeeee

man, imagine a Hellenic, Greek speaking version of Roma, what could have been...

>Dude, I'm a huge fucking Romaboo
Then you'd know that around the time of Alexander the Romans had moved well and away from fighting with the phalanx style and were now adopting the maniple formation of the Samnites. This is also the period in which equipment was becomingly increasing standardized, when you begin to see soldiers fitted with mail and gladii. Really, it's not a given but I wouldn't be so quick to throw my weight behind Alexander.
>Alexander is easily the most tactically brilliant general in all of history
Lmao come on dude.

>Romans contemporaneous to Alexander would have had superior arms and armor
From where?
>a larger base of manpower from the subjugation of Italian tribes
Except that hadn't even happened yet you fucking retard. The Etruscans, Samnites, and Umbri were still independent of Rome in the 330s BC.
>Also literally all it would take to defeat Alexander's empire would be to kill him in battle
Wow, a feat that was never accomplished!

>hannibal
>most tactically brilliant general in all of history
>never won a single war

"Hellenised Persia would be amazing."
- Alexander the Great

MUH DOUBLE ENVELOPMENT

Even Hannibal didn't think he was better than Alexander
>Lmao come on dude
Nice refute. Alexander was in an insane number of battles of multiple terrains. He dealt with Steppeniggers, mountain climbing, sieges of the most fortified cities on earth, tropical warfare, MULTIPLE river crossings, all under 10 years in lands mostly unexplored by Greek eyes, and he never lost. 10,000 miles of logistics in some of the most arid landscapes on earth my nigga.

>From where?
From their close proximity to Celts which facilitated a use of mail, and the introduction of Celtic iron-working which also facilitated the introduction of swords. The Romans borrowed what they could from their neighbors.
>Except that hadn't even happened yet you fucking retard. The Etruscans, Samnites, and Umbri were still independent of Rome in the 330s BC.
Nobody's speaking on Rome conquering the entirety of Italy yet, at this point they were far-and-away the most powerful force in Italy following their subjugation of the Sabines and other Latin tribes.
>Wow, a feat that was never accomplished!
Because the people he fought met him in battle with swarms of undisciplined, poorly-armed Persian levies who felt no personal inclination or obligation to stand and fight for Darius. Outside of the siege of Tyre and the few pitched battles he did fight, all Alexander did was monkey around with steppe/mountain niggers.

>Alexander
>Siege of Multan citadel

What the fuck was that retard thinking?

Sounds about right. Hannibal is the perfect example of brilliant tactics making up for shit strategies. If he wasn’t a tactical mastermind and managed the seemingly impossible time and time again, the strategy itself was dumb. He misread the Italians thinking they’d prefer Carthaginian rule to Roman which was a huge blunder expecting the Italians to side with the Gauls you just brought over the alps, he had no easy way to get supplies or actually consolidate territory, he neglected Spain and allowed it to be conquered; raiding around Italy defeating armies but failing to take cities or gain allies was a bad strategy, and only viable with a tactical mastermind leading the army and even then he should have packed up and left after cannae to consolidate in Spain, should have realized his strategy wasn’t working a lot earlier and left while he was ahead, probably could have gotten a good peace deal and maintained Spain, but being a constant boogie man in Italy for the Romans to rally against turned out to be a bad move.

> he never lost
Because he had with him an army with an actual marital tradition, layers of organization, and some of the deepest coffers known to fucking man and was bringing this to meet in battle squabbling bands of Persians. I'm not disparaging the shit he pulled off, the sheer amount of gravitas required to do so is astounding, but his forces always dramatically outclassed his enemies even with their sheer numbers.

Because Macedonia IS NOT SLAVIC

Compared to Mesopotamia at the time, the west wasn’t shit

You really think Philip could have done what Alexander did leading his army from the back of a phalanx? It took an incredibly brave person to ride at the head of a wedge formation and charge into battle over 30 times, I doubt Philip could have inspired such devastating precision strikes with some subcommander leading the companions and he wasn’t brave enough to do it himself. Alexander was inspiring and a hands-on leader, half of what makes his army so effective isn’t the discipline but the morale, and having Alexander there boosted their morale on several occasions and pushed them to win the battle when they would have otherwise retreated. I don’t buy this idea that “anybody could of done what Alexander did because his army was so good.” Not just anybody can lead the wedge, much less dozens of times.

>You really think Philip could have done what Alexander did leading his army from the back of a phalanx?
What the fuck are you talking about? Philip was just as hands on as Alexander was. The two of them fought on the frontlines together once Alexander came of age and was able to fight alongside his father putting down revolts in Greece. I'd flip this proposition around and ask if you truly believe Alexander would've been able to conquer Asia had it not been for the massive springboard Philip laid out for him in turning Macedonia from a provincial backwater into a premier Mediterranean power and instituting the military reforms that Alexander would use. Bravery only counts for so much, and while it went a long way in Alexander's case, it's not the deciding factor in who wins what.

Alexander fought at the head of a cavalry wedge.
Philip “fought” from the back of the phalanx. It’s clear which action is more dangerous, Philip was obviously a brilliant commander and built an excellent army, but shifting the leadership to the head of the cavalry from where Philip had it in the back of the phalanx was the crucial tactical change that pushed them to the next level and made Alexander more than just some kid leading his dad’s army. Philip was never the first guy up a ladder in a siege. Philip never charges into elephants, Philip was never personally charging at the enemy king trying to kill him, Alexander was clearly far braver and this clearly had a big impact on his army’s morale. He proved that he was willing to put himself in more danger than anyone else in the army time and time again, Philip fought and was brave in his own right, but not as brave as his son. History has rightfully recognized this even if you will not.

"Fuck Coalitions"

- Napoleon Bonaparte, 1806

...

Dude, this isn't the point. Quit this strawman attempt to shift the conversation as to who was braver between Philip and Alexander.

Quit ignoring the importance of the shift between an army led from the back and an army led from the front, keep implying this had no tactical impact when it is quite literally the defining mark of his brilliance during his conquests. Alexander did more with that army than Philip ever could have and it had everything to do with alexander’s personal bravery and the sacrifices he made to his own security in order to inspire bravery and ensure tactical precision. It has everything to do with who is braver because Alexander’s bravery is the defining trait of his tactics and leadership.

Persia was always cool, you scrub, be it islamic or pre-islamic.

>what are Greek city armies
>what are professional Greek mercanaries
>what are steppe niggers that would
BTFO he Romans at the height of their power
>what are well organized and armed Indian kingdoms

Lol, try actually reading about Alexander’s campaigns. The Romans could barely handle Pyrrhus. And you think they could handle the big boy himself? At an early date when Rome’s power is weaker and her resources fewer?
Alexander vs Rome happens in either one of two ways. Either, against all logic, he goes west at the beginning of his campaign and finds a tough but not yet particulary dominate Italian state. Or it comes later in his career to which point the somewhat stronger Rome now has to deal with Alexander when he has all the wealth and resources of the east. Rome would get cracked like an egg.

This, if Alexander was anyone else, or had behaved any less heroically during his campaigns, he probably would have been assassinated by the rank and file troops in the Indian or Babylonian mutinies. His troops had insane levels of morale to put up with and thrive in the conditions they went through.

>tfw you natively speak Aramaic
>tfw 99% of Persians wn know tf

Aramic being the administrative language doesn't mean it was native to Persians.

...

High quality. Moar by this artist?

"Fuck Italy and Serbia."

- Emperor Fran Joseph of Austria 1914AD

what the fuck

To be fair, his strategy even managed to work for a while because the Romans were just "let's throw more armies at him, muh decisive battle" until Fabius slapped it out of them

>Your men are shit at mountain warfare against balkan war vets
>The exact opposite happens with the Isonzo
>Meanwhile Russians are rearing their big ugly heads even if the germans kick their ass