Alexander the Great vs. China

[vogtmurr]

Err, the Persian empire was the near east, so to speak, and China is the far east. We're talking about a great difference in distance here.

Besides, he practically took over the Persian empire and its political machinery. That's not going to be the case further on. And you might want to see how the Greek Baktrians ended up if you think dealing with the steppe tribes was going to be that easy.

Also, Alexander was not invincible. He had trouble dealing with a minor king like Porus, and with help from Taxila as well. One of the things it shows is fighting very foreign people with a different enough sort of warfare on their home territory wasn't a simple exercise even for a genius god-emperor.

Alright, I won't waste our time trying to argue subjective things. Each of us will assign a different weighting to that depending on what makes up our point of view, and it is a lot of effort to change that. Usually it is just a matter of emphasis which can easily be misunderstood. But when I see an opportunity to clarify I will point out:

1. Alexander has already assembled his army in Bactria after completing the consolidation of his empire. It did not require marching half-way across a hostile continent the way it did the first time - he's assembling and securing his frontiers as he picks up more supplies and some of the better troops from his 'satraps' along the way. The next leg is actually shorter than the first time he came this way, not longer. So what's this great insurmountable distance ?
2. The Greek Bactrians subsequently conquered about 50% of India, and after rival Successor generals stabbed them in the back, the Sakae invaded Bactria while they were busy elsewhere. In the grand scheme this short lived dynasty did more than most people are even aware of or could believe was possible with such powerful enemies.
3. He had trouble because he had to win a hard fight (with smaller numbers actually engaged btw). Yes it wasn't handed to him on a platter. Having to win a great victory over a powerful king, after they just trounced three equally powerful native kingdoms should count as reason to believe he can do it again.

Anyway, I said very clearly that I dislike over-emphasizing the repeating crossbows and now you're telling me I was extolling their virtues I dunno, but this thread has been consistently disappointing.

Yes - after a few discussions we both agreed the smaller cho ko nu was not the weapon of choice for the trained crossbowmen (although you may be underestimating it as a weapon of mass numbers, I did not assign a huge weakness to it based on the video - you did !). But it is indeed very dissapointing because this is what you just posted: "They also assumed the Chinese had mainly small Zhu Ge crossbows with pencil-like quarrels that relied on poisoned tips to kill unarmoured targets partly because of a TV show of dubious scholarship."

Without reinforcements from Macedonia, he would have too few elite infantry to execute the Macedonian tactics properly. He would hardly stand a chance, unless he pulled off something really brilliant while his Chinese opponents must be completely idiotic. And I like how he "treats with Tokharians" just like that. And steppe warfare is a whole different ballgame. He would have a nightmare with his supply lines.

No you're not. The point is people are just saying whatever they like here, with some actual info interspersed. But is there any surprise when we're talking about a completely hypothetical scenario while not being established scholars of the relevant fields? We even have people who get their info mainly from the mass media!

After I spend hours building a plausible case, it's so easy for someone to just take my mere reference of what I spelled out elsewhere, as 'just like that', an oversimplified assumption. Appearing as a saviour to the basin people after overawing or subduing the Sakae, and then recognizing their value and being willing to trade or make promises, offers a good chance of success, especially at the head of the most powerful and unusual army they will have ever seen. If it doesn't work out - then he would have to resort to strongarm tactics, but don't try to tell me that every single nation on the road to China is unable to trade, treat, or ally themselves with Alexander. We've already seen it happen for god's sake in history.

Maybe I am missing your point, but let me vent here for just a moment. Unfortunately, it seems I have to prove in convincing detail every possible reasonable benefit Alexander might have in his favour, to the point where it's ridiculous. And then repeat it every time someone posts like this. But are we supposed to accept at face value that the defenders have superior tactics, metallurgy, greater resolve, longer range weapons, are able to support a million trained men, and have generals more gifted than Alexander because they read Art of War ? Clearly, because I have put forward a hypothetical scenario it must pass the acid test and microscopic scrutiny multiple times, but then that same level of scrutiny applies the other way.

Let's just put aside some of the rhetoric 'both sides' have used, please. I've fired off a few barbs myself. In my last attempt; I took almost every solid suggestion from cypher_101 and yourself, even when it was not supported by what little I've read, because I will admit I'm not an authority on Warring States. There is now a Qin army with almost as many cavalry as chariots, almost as many bowmen as crossbowmn, and not cheap ineffective crossbows either, that in total is twice the size plus as Alexander's army. I adopted this against my judgement in some cases because I would rather err on the conservative side than continue to argue about weapons and proportions. I thought it would be more acceptable to everyone this way, but until you've seen what the array will finally look like, you're not convinced. Fine, but please suspend your judgement until you've seen that.

I also supplied a reasonable, simplified logic flowchart of possible outcomes that does not stretch the imagination, and the big question mark is still what happens in the initial encounters. If we express the thought that Alexander has a chance, it is far too early to call it a verdict of victory. It is unprovable in a hypothetical sense like you said, but is it a reasonable simulation attempt ? Are you still unhappy with the tremendous power of the Qin army I've represented here ? What do they need, short of an 85% chance of victory in the first round ?

 

[nokmirt]

Err, the Persian empire was the near east, so to speak, and China is the far east. We're talking about a great difference in distance here.

Besides, he practically took over the Persian empire and its political machinery. That's not going to be the case further on. And you might want to see how the Greek Baktrians ended up if you think dealing with the steppe tribes was going to be that easy.

Also, Alexander was not invincible. He had trouble dealing with a minor king like Porus, and with help from Taxila as well. One of the things it shows is fighting very foreign people with a different enough sort of warfare on their home territory wasn't a simple exercise even for a genius god-emperor.



Yeah, go and read the thread again and you'll see everything that I mean.

Anyway, I said very clearly that I dislike over-emphasizing the repeating crossbows and now you're telling me I was extolling their virtues I dunno, but this thread has been consistently disappointing.



Without reinforcements from Macedonia, he would have too few elite infantry to execute the Macedonian tactics properly. He would hardly stand a chance, unless he pulled off something really brilliant while his Chinese opponents must be completely idiotic. And I like how he "treats with Tokharians" just like that. And steppe warfare is a whole different ballgame. He would have a nightmare with his supply lines.



No you're not. The point is people are just saying whatever they like here, with some actual info interspersed. But is there any surprise when we're talking about a completely hypothetical scenario while not being established scholars of the relevant fields? We even have people who get their info mainly from the mass media!

Don't you love living in a Capitalistic Democracy aelf? Let me ask you what are your scholarly credentials? When it comes to Greek as well as Chinese ancient History. Besides even a PhD would not know the answer to this thread, because everybody deviates from the simple question. Who would win if the Macedonians fought the Chinese in a battle. The first question simply states what would happen if Alexander continued on and fought the Chinese in war. This really has nothing to do with how either side gets there. Really anything else would be way too complicated and you would need several threads just to keep everyone on the right track. I include myself in straying from the heart of the thread. From now on I am not going to deviate from this. And this crossbow thing has got to be put to rest. The one final thing, there is no room for any free thought in this thread. I think thats wrong, for having an opinion or idea, you catch hell if somebody thinks different than you do. To have an opinion on this thread, you should not have to be an expert, not one person on this thread is, including myself. Someday maybe, I have always loved History, and I am returning to school soon, but I have a ways to go, and like most people on here alot to learn. In any case maybe its time we work together to figure this out, I think that would be less of a headache. Just a thought

Maybe we should e-mail an expert on both sides and see what kind of answer we get.

 

[Masada]

I am sorry but this was what I was trying to say. I said clearly he can stop and regroup during the monsoon season.

Where?

However theres is no reason why he could'nt have pursued this course little by little, even if for just exploratory reasons, he could have done that, and he did do that on the way back to the Tigris river(much of the explored area was thought to be impassible, but he did make it to Susa, with obsolete galleys), this is beyond doubt and it is part of recorded History. Also the monsoon season does it last all year? Is it not possible?

I've already pointed out how you do it - a quick check of Wikipedia will give you the monsoon seasons and you can do the rest. Here's what your missing, they had a starting and ending point with a known route between. In this case you have a starting route, an unknown end point and a completely unknown route. That's the difference, there is impossibility because its difficult and there is impossibility because nobody knows it exists which to boot is extremely demanding.

The thing is Masada is that unlike you Alexander and Nearchus did not know this, and nevertheless they may have tried it, even a limited expedition.

It gets better! He didn't even know it existed! Ptolemy working hundreds of years later merely marked in the Golden Chersonese as a solid wall of land and he had "good" information from Greek traders working out of Egypt. Prior to the rise of Ptolemaic Egypt the Greeks had no knowledge of what lay beyond India let alone how to get there by sea - nobody in Europe did even Indian traders had only just begun to reach it in limited numbers!

And Masada the route is always unknown or imaginary as you put it until somebody actually pursues and explores it.

It wasn't someone. It was many separate traders over the course of centuries who opened it up. I've already posted quotes which show that the route existed in multiple stages, there is significant evidence to show that what little trade existed prior to about the 4th century AD was sporadic and was carried on largely to wit not;

‘international trade’… the wondrous picture is explained of a trade which went its way from one end of the world to the other, handling and transporting expensive merchandise… at the same time a powerless thing, a trade which seems to have been trifling and at the same time involved many people.

The main thing that I agree on is that they of course needed better ships. But they would not believe it to be impossible, nothing on earth is impossible. I don't know about you I would not throw my fleet into a monsoon, you wait until the monsoon season is over then push on and so on. I hope you understand now, my goodness

You just don't get it; push on to what? They thought the world bloody well ended.

Masada, I don't disagree with your underlying statements, but I think you are missing my point. You keep assuming Alexander has this perfect geographical knowledge and hindsight to make the perfect decisions. Ships can haul a lot more supplies than an army can on land. I never presumed striking out across the ocean - if Alexander made the mistake of taking the southern route through India - the fleet would hug the coasts. What about the Persian Gulf, Coast of India, Arabia, etc ? It doesn't need to get to China to exploit obvious opportunities. If nothing else, they may be trading with the Indians for basic supplies, you know, it's much easier to have locals bring it to you than have to keep sacking cities and getting food out of depopulated countryside. And don't ask me to start explaining what they are going to trade - if someone doesn't like their goods they'll take what they need anyway, and save the nice vases and amphora of olive oil, wine, whatever isn't spolilage for someone who actually cares for it. But trade goods would be primarily low mass luxury items, like maybe incense from South Arabia. Are you telling me there's no trade opportunities in South Asia at this time ?

On the contrary I'm assuming he didn't know that there was a sea route to China full-stop and that it was unlikely he would ever have found out about the sea route.

Your also assuming its possible to hug the coasts, I've already shown that it isn't possible to do so for India's western coast, the same applies to round the tip, and the same applies for rounding the western coast and that is why the route is so demanding - you can only do it if your quick and a large fleet of ships is not going to be quick.

Basically. Silk is just beginning to work its way over from China, the Malays haven't even started trading with Funan yet, and well Funan was merely a way-point and didn't have much in the way of stuff to trade. All the luxuries of the east don't exist yet - no spice, little if any silk mostly from the overland route, and Indian itself had little in the way of value.

Let me ask you what are your scholarly credentials? When it comes to Greek as well as Chinese ancient History. Besides even a PhD would not know the answer to this thread, because everybody deviates from the simple question.

... says the person who went "he could have done it by sea..." What pray are your scholarly credentials?

 

[aelf]

Alright, I won't waste our time trying to argue subjective things. Each of us will assign a different weighting to that depending on what makes up our point of view, and it is a lot of effort to change that. Usually it is just a matter of emphasis which can easily be misunderstood. But when I see an opportunity to clarify I will point out:

1. Alexander has already assembled his army in Bactria after completing the consolidation of his empire. It did not require marching half-way across a hostile continent the way it did the first time - he's assembling and securing his frontiers as he picks up more supplies and some of the better troops from his 'satraps' along the way. The next leg is actually shorter than the first time he came this way, not longer. So what's this great insurmountable distance ?

The steppes.

And there aren't a ready supply of Greeks in Baktria for him to use if he had decided to embark on the expedition soon. If he had waited to consolidate his empire, what says he wouldn't then be busy trying to quell threats and rebellions elsewhere? That would have been very likely. The Greeks hated the Macedonians, for one.

As you can see, there are too many variables for this to be convincing. But you want to assume everything works out. Fine. But my point still stands. All I said was that there are many assumptions made in this thread, some more ridiculous than others. And I've consistently said that this is purely hypothetical and that's its not going to produce anything convincing, so I'm not being inconsistent. Why are you so defensive? I was talking to Masada, not you. If you're interested in the fun factor, then go on ahead. Just don't expect anything of real interest, as I've suggested since the beginning.

2. The Greek Bactrians subsequently conquered about 50% of India, and after rival Successor generals stabbed them in the back, the Sakae invaded Bactria while they were busy elsewhere. In the grand scheme this short lived dynasty did more than most people are even aware of or could believe was possible with such powerful enemies.

Oh, yeah, I like Baktria. But you said yourself that they are short-lived. You know why? Yeah, there are lots of threats around there that wear empires down. There was probably not going to be a simple Pax Grecia.

3. He had trouble because he had to win a hard fight (with smaller numbers actually engaged btw). Yes it wasn't handed to him on a platter. Having to win a great victory over a powerful king, after they just trounced three equally powerful native kingdoms should count as reason to believe he can do it again.

Dude, this sounds like pure spin. Difficulty is made out to be another challenge. Yeah, sure, it's a challenge. A challenge that Alexander's men didn't feel up to. Maybe they were cowards, not the brave Macedonians who won Issus, Gaugamela and Hydaspes. Oh, wait...

Yes - after a few discussions we both agreed the smaller cho ko nu was not the weapon of choice for the trained crossbowmen (although you may be underestimating it as a weapon of mass numbers, I did not assign a huge weakness to it based on the video - you did !). But it is indeed very dissapointing because this is what you just posted: "They also assumed the Chinese had mainly small Zhu Ge crossbows with pencil-like quarrels that relied on poisoned tips to kill unarmoured targets partly because of a TV show of dubious scholarship."

Wow, we're really deep into hardcore stuff here. I didn't think the Zhu Ge Nu was really that significant since before the video, which I didn't even trust at all. This is one of the disappointing parts. Despite claiming that people don't read, you don't read either. You also don't seem to read what others posted. Feel free to read through the thread again. You also seem to be kind of self-obsessed now because you're assuming that everything is about you.

After I spend hours building a plausible case, it's so easy for someone to just take my mere reference of what I spelled out elsewhere, as 'just like that', an oversimplified assumption. Appearing as a saviour to the basin people after overawing or subduing the Sakae, and then recognizing their value and being willing to trade or make promises, offers a good chance of success, especially at the head of the most powerful and unusual army they will have ever seen. If it doesn't work out - then he would have to resort to strongarm tactics, but don't try to tell me that every single nation on the road to China is unable to trade, treat, or ally themselves with Alexander. We've already seen it happen for god's sake in history.

There's no reason anyone should agree with this bit at all. This is a terrible account and puts Gibbon to shame. Like I said, you're doing this hypothesizing for fun, yes? It becomes absurd when you assume that you're going to come up with anything convincing. Some people refuse to participate here because they know that this is going to be another one of the long list of pointless speculations.

As for myself, I've never deviated from that opinion either. When I chipped in, I was either talking about some facts as far as I know, or I was essentially saying that, given what I know of the Chinese military and the Macedonian one, assuming unrealistically in my mind that they clash like in a game of RTW or something, the Greeks would probably lose. I also said that it's unlikely the Greeks would make it there. The truth is they stopped. Anything else beyond that has the impossible burden of proof to be convincing, and I've never been interested to make the scenario plausible.

Maybe I am missing your point, but let me vent here for just a moment. Unfortunately, it seems I have to prove in convincing detail every possible reasonable benefit Alexander might have in his favour, to the point where it's ridiculous. And then repeat it every time someone posts like this. But are we supposed to accept at face value that the defenders have superior tactics, metallurgy, greater resolve, longer range weapons, are able to support a million trained men, and have generals more gifted than Alexander because they read Art of War ? Clearly, because I have put forward a hypothetical scenario it must pass the acid test and microscopic scrutiny multiple times, but then that same level of scrutiny applies the other way.

No, you don't have to be convincing, because you can't. Maybe you could be if you were a team of experts and wrote a very good and well-researched book about it, but that's not the case. In that case, why are you peeved that people are not convinced? That should be expected.

I also told you what I thought of the Chinese army's strength and how it might perform against the Greeks. Some of it you didn't seem to pick up. Fine, whatever. This is just a case of people saying anything that they want, really, with a little intelligent reasoning and some intermittent info. It never changed and never will.

What really disappoints me is how some of you are so locked into your own view of things and of what is transpiring that you fail to see the truth about what others are saying. And I mean that in more than one way.

Let's just put aside some of the rhetoric 'both sides' have used, please. I've fired off a few barbs myself. In my last attempt; I took almost every solid suggestion from cypher_101 and yourself, even when it was not supported by what little I've read, because I will admit I'm not an authority on Warring States. There is now a Qin army with almost as many cavalry as chariots, almost as many bowmen as crossbowmn, and not cheap ineffective crossbows either, that in total is twice the size plus as Alexander's army. I adopted this against my judgement in some cases because I would rather err on the conservative side than continue to argue about weapons and proportions. I thought it would be more acceptable to everyone this way, but until you've seen what the array will finally look like, you're not convinced. Fine, but please suspend your judgement until you've seen that.

I don't care about the compromise. I said what I know, and I'm not interested in really convincing anyone. I didn't try it with Flying Pig when he persisted. The compromise is ridiculous. You don't agree with what I think? Then fine, whatever. Compromising has no point whatsoever. Treat this as a mental exercise and don't get too uptight when people see the holes in the whole premise.

I also supplied a reasonable, simplified logic flowchart of possible outcomes that does not stretch the imagination, and the big question mark is still what happens in the initial encounters. If we express the thought that Alexander has a chance, it is far too early to call it a verdict of victory. It is unprovable in a hypothetical sense like you said, but is it a reasonable simulation attempt ? Are you still unhappy with the tremendous power of the Qin army I've represented here ? What do they need, short of an 85% chance of victory in the first round ?

Okay, let me give you an analogy. You might be able to speculate that the Empire in Star Wars might be able to best the Federation in Star Trek by comparing the strength of their weapons and their general performance. Would you be able to create a plausible account? I don't think so. Too many variables to take into account, on top of the purely fantastic nature of the scenario in the first place. Same thing here.

Don't you love living in a Capitalistic Democracy aelf?

What the heck does this have to do with anything?

In fact, I can tell you that a capitalistic democracy is quite bad for education.

Let me ask you what are your scholarly credentials? When it comes to Greek as well as Chinese ancient History.

How about I never claimed any? Training in theatre I do have, as well as some knowledge of film. And I study philosophy, including the philosophy of art, among a few other things. I never claimed to be a historical scholar.

But it doesn't take someone with a degree in astrophysics to point out that the moon is not made of green cheese.

Besides even a PhD would not know the answer to this thread, because everybody deviates from the simple question. Who would win if the Macedonians fought the Chinese in a battle. The first question simply states what would happen if Alexander continued on and fought the Chinese in war. This really has nothing to do with how either side gets there. Really anything else would be way too complicated and you would need several threads just to keep everyone on the right track. I include myself in straying from the heart of the thread. From now on I am not going to deviate from this. And this crossbow thing has got to be put to rest. The one final thing, there is no room for any free thought in this thread. I think thats wrong, for having an opinion or idea, you catch hell if somebody thinks different than you do. To have an opinion on this thread, you should not have to be an expert, not one person on this thread is, including myself. Someday maybe, I have always loved History, and I am returning to school soon, but I have a ways to go, and like most people on here alot to learn. In any case maybe its time we work together to figure this out, I think that would be less of a headache. Just a thought.

Indeed. So I don't see what the fuss is about when it's pointed out that the scenario entails a bunch of wacky assumptions and so it has little hope of attaining plausibility. People are perpetually trying to look for some, and this is what they should know. There's not going to be accuracy in this thing, only speculation. And, honestly, some of the speculation here has been totally out there.

 

[nokmirt]

The steppes.

And there aren't a ready supply of Greeks in Baktria for him to use if he had decided to embark on the expedition soon. If he had waited to consolidate his empire, what says he wouldn't then be busy trying to quell threats and rebellions elsewhere? That would have been very likely. The Greeks hated the Macedonians, for one.

As you can see, there are too many variables for this to be convincing. But you want to assume everything works out. Fine. But my point still stands. All I said was that there are many assumptions made in this thread, some more ridiculous than others. And I've consistently said that this is purely hypothetical and that's its not going to produce anything convincing, so I'm not being inconsistent. Why are you so defensive? I was talking to Masada, not you. If you're interested in the fun factor, then go on ahead. Just don't expect anything of real interest, as I've suggested since the beginning.



Oh, yeah, I like Baktria. But you said yourself that they are short-lived. You know why? Yeah, there are lots of threats around there that wear empires down. There was probably not going to be a simple Pax Grecia.



Dude, this sounds like pure spin. Difficulty is made out to be another challenge. Yeah, sure, it's a challenge. A challenge that Alexander's men didn't feel up to. Maybe they were cowards, not the brave Macedonians who won Issus, Gaugamela and Hydaspes. Oh, wait...



Wow, we're really deep into hardcore stuff here. I didn't think the Zhu Ge Nu was really that significant since before the video, which I didn't even trust at all. This is one of the disappointing parts. Despite claiming that people don't read, you don't read either. You also don't seem to read what others posted. Feel free to read through the thread again. You also seem to be kind of self-obsessed now because you're assuming that everything is about you.



There's no reason anyone should agree with this bit at all. This is a terrible account and puts Gibbon to shame. Like I said, you're doing this hypothesizing for fun, yes? It becomes absurd when you assume that you're going to come up with anything convincing. Some people refuse to participate here because they know that this is going to be another one of the long list of pointless speculations.

As for myself, I've never deviated from that opinion either. When I chipped in, I was either talking about some facts as far as I know, or I was essentially saying that, given what I know of the Chinese military and the Macedonian one, assuming unrealistically in my mind that they clash like in a game of RTW or something, the Greeks would probably lose. I also said that it's unlikely the Greeks would make it there. The truth is they stopped. Anything else beyond that has the impossible burden of proof to be convincing, and I've never been interested to make the scenario plausible.



No, you don't have to be convincing, because you can't. Maybe you could be if you were a team of experts and wrote a very good and well-researched book about it, but that's not the case. In that case, why are you peeved that people are not convinced? That should be expected.

I also told you what I thought of the Chinese army's strength and how it might perform against the Greeks. Some of it you didn't seem to pick up. Fine, whatever. This is just a case of people saying anything that they want, really, with a little intelligent reasoning and some intermittent info. It never changed and never will.

What really disappoints me is how some of you are so locked into your own view of things and of what is transpiring that you fail to see the truth about what others are saying. And I mean that in more than one way.



I don't care about the compromise. I said what I know, and I'm not interested in really convincing anyone. I didn't try it with Flying Pig when he persisted. The compromise is ridiculous. You don't agree with what I think? Then fine, whatever. Compromising has no point whatsoever. Treat this as a mental exercise and don't get too uptight when people see the holes in the whole premise.



Okay, let me give you an analogy. You might be able to speculate that the Empire in Star Wars might be able to best the Federation in Star Trek by comparing the strength of their weapons and their general performance. Would you be able to create a plausible account? I don't think so. Too many variables to take into account, on top of the purely fantastic nature of the scenario in the first place. Same thing here.



What the heck does this have to do with anything?

In fact, I can tell you that a capitalistic democracy is quite bad for education.



How about I never claimed any? Training in theatre I do have, as well as some knowledge of film. And I study philosophy, including the philosophy of art, among a few other things. I never claimed to be a historical scholar.

But it doesn't take someone with a degree in astrophysics to point out that the moon is not made of green cheese.



Indeed. So I don't see what the fuss is about when it's pointed out that the scenario entails a bunch of wacky assumptions and so it has little hope of attaining plausibility. People are perpetually trying to look for some, and this is what they should know. There's not going to be accuracy in this thing, only speculation. And, honestly, some of the speculation here has been totally out there.

Yes I know and I probably added to it, I through the whole Southern route idea out there and I got nailed to a cross for it.... I think the real problem is their really not enough hard evidence just guessing with plausibility. Maybe we should discuss something else ha ha...like World War One. I just do not know if taking this further is going to help it come to a fair conclusion. What do you think?

 

[vogtmurr]

Masada - I just want to say - a land army supported by a fleet is reason enough for there to be a fleet in the first place, just like in 326-5 BC. I only believed it could reach the Bay of Bengal, beyond that nothing more. I wasn't debating that it could reach China, ever. But, if Alexander thought it was the quickest way to reach the end of the world, he may have very well chosen it for that particular reason.

 

[aelf]

Yes I know and I probably added to it, I through the whole Southern route idea out there and I got nailed to a cross for it.... I think the real problem is their really not enough hard evidence just guessing with plausibility. Maybe we should discuss something else ha ha...like World War One. I just do not know if taking this further is going to help it come to a fair conclusion. What do you think?

You could do the speculation, why not? The setting up of a plausible scenario, though, is hopeless.

I've already given my speculation. I have little else to add, really.

 

[innonimatu]

It gets better! He didn't even know it existed! Ptolemy working hundreds of years later merely marked in the Golden Chersonese as a solid wall of land and he had "good" information from Greek traders working out of Egypt. Prior to the rise of Ptolemaic Egypt the Greeks had no knowledge of what lay beyond India let alone how to get there by sea - nobody in Europe did even Indian traders had only just begun to reach it in limited numbers!

I think that you're overestimating the difficulty of charting a new route through unknown territory. Yes, it was bloody expensive, and that's why few private groups set out to do it. But it was possible. The Carthaginians proved it when they explored Africa (they just didn't carry on because they had plenty of land and trade nearby), the Vikings later even crossed the Atlantic and penetrated far into Eastern Europe just because that was the way they lived. And much later (with better ships, granted) Europeans mapped the american cost in about 50 years.
Basically I'm arguing that charting a sea route to India in Alexander's time wasn't impossible if a powerful ruler ordered and funded the exploration, and was really interested in obtaining results. Moving a large army by ship, however, would be impossible without setting up harbors and supplies along the way, and that's an effort for more than a generation - something which I don't see any ancient dynasty doing as part of a single, sustained project.

To reach China at the time the land route through Central Asia had long been in use, and would be the only viable path for invasion.

 

[vogtmurr]

Ok Aelf. You were a major contributor, trying to reason things out with us, but if you are taking the high road, saying it is all BS now and you are completely unconcerned, I can let it go. I won't take your previous comments seriously that I thought were unfair and made a mockery of my effort. (The issues we had with the crossbows are resolved as far as I'm concerned, which suggestion didn't I read ?) I may not convince or be able to compromise with you - but at this point I'm pretty satisfied with what we've done, and I can put it aside for now.

EDIT: It is a starting point after much debate, and if nokmirt or FlyingPig wants to pick up on it, it can be a matter of fine tuning a few things to set up a game scenario. After this much effort we deserve a little candy

 

[aelf]

Ok Aelf. You were a major contributor, trying to reason things out with us, but if you are taking the high road, saying it is all BS now and you are completely unconcerned, I can let it go. I won't take your previous comments seriously that I thought were unfair and made a mockery of my effort. (The issues we had with the crossbows are resolved as far as I'm concerned, which suggestion didn't I read ?) I may not convince or be able to compromise with you - but at this point I'm pretty satisfied with what I've done, and I can put it aside for now.

You demonstrated some of my points again.

And, really, you take this way too seriously. It's not good for your health.

 

[Masada]

I through the whole Southern route idea out there and I got nailed to a cross for it.... I think the real problem is their really not enough hard evidence just guessing with plausibility.

There's a whole lot of hard evidence if you care to actually read the texts... ironically I have them all sitting on my desk for another project I'm working on - with regards to the Southern Ocean.

Masada - I just want to say - a land army supported by a fleet is reason enough for there to be a fleet in the first place, just like in 326-5 BC. I only believed it could reach the Bay of Bengal, beyond that nothing more. I wasn't debating that it could reach China, ever. But, if Alexander thought it was the quickest way to reach the end of the world, he may have very well chosen it for that particular reason.

He would have had to suspend more disbelief than I care to think about.

I think that you're overestimating the difficulty of charting a new route through unknown territory. Yes, it was bloody expensive, and that's why few private groups set out to do it. But it was possible. The Carthaginians proved it when they explored Africa (they just didn't carry on because they had plenty of land and trade nearby), the Vikings later even crossed the Atlantic and penetrated far into Eastern Europe just because that was the way they lived. And much later (with better ships, granted) Europeans mapped the american cost in about 50 years.

How was it expensive? The cost of equipping four vessels to take some "Spaniards" across the sea was not all that considerable (it came from discretionary spending if that is what you mean). What your missing is that it was the result of a whole series of fortuitous events including the Reconquista which yielded the technological edge required to make the Naos, Carracks; the bases on the Canaries which had winds which aided the journey and a whole series of little baby steps on the way. All of those had historic precedent, they were all moving in their element, the Norse had already reached Iceland and Greenland, physical stepping stones on their journey to the New World and had indeed already made it to the Constantinople via the Black Sea and back via a river system. The Carthaginians took it in baby steps as well, they accumulated the knowledge required to leave the pillars of Hercules and over a period of generations consolidated and disseminated that knowledge such that they were eventually capable of making that final leap. Even Europeans once they had reached the New World were merely following the lay of the land, making use of skills they had refined elsewhere and which as you've acknowledged took 50 years, baby steps again. None of your examples jumped out of thin air! They had historic precedents behind them for it.

Basically I'm arguing that charting a sea route to India in Alexander's time wasn't impossible if a powerful ruler ordered and funded the exploration, and was really interested in obtaining results. Moving a large army by ship, however, would be impossible without setting up harbors and supplies along the way, and that's an effort for more than a generation - something which I don't see any ancient dynasty doing as part of a single, sustained project.

We were never talking about a sea route to India unless the Straits of Malacca and the the Isthmus of Kra are part of India now... I also don't see any ancient dynasty pushing forward the sea map as part of any single sustained project either.

To reach China at the time the land route through Central Asia had long been in use, and would be the only viable path for invasion.

Agreed. The only other viable route didn't exist.

 

[Cipher_101]

I've provided many statements with wiki quotes you apparently didn't read. You'll forgive me if I chose the internationally collaborative wiki site over the People's Education Press. History_of_ferrous_metallurgy

Instead of forgiving I must appreciate your charitable deed by introducing me this incredible passage which is from the "international collaborative" source you have given me just now...

"Western historians debate whether bloomery-based ironworking ever spread to China from the Middle East. Around 500 BC, however, metalworkers in the southern state of Wu developed an iron smelting technology that would not be practiced in Europe until late medieval times. In Wu, iron smelters achieved a temperature of 1130°C, hot enough to be considered a blast furnace which could create cast iron...."( I have seen this passage in the same thread before)

"Cast iron is rather brittle and unsuitable for striking implements. It can, however, be decarburized to steel or wrought iron by heating it in air for several days. In China, these ironworking methods spread northward, and by 300 BC, iron was the material of choice throughout China for most tools and weapons....."

It seems like the Chinese site is not exaggerating. By the way, it's a regret that there is no single passage in wikipedia that refer to your statement which is: *" all "*weapons of Alexander army were made of iron. Maybe in your context, "all" means majority or a portion. But for me, "all" is "no single one that doesn't". We are all human, metaphysically means that no single one of us is Alien, are we?

Language barrier might be a problem assuming he doesn't have a single Chinese interpreter amongst the many cultures he's already encountered to get to this point. But this part has always been a question mark for me. I point out the recent death of not-so-popular King Huiwen, the recent bloody subjugation of Shu, and the restive nature of western nomads that Qin never subdued. Apparently not everyone appreciated Qin's overlordhip - it went from the pinnacle of power in 221 BC to non-existence in 206 BC. How about this scenario:

.....
.....
.....
......
.......
........
......
.....
.......

That rather interesting hypothesis of Alexander meeting a 12th Century AD Mongol Army illustrated that against such experience and mobility he would probably lose. There is certainly experience here, but not that kind of mobility. It seems the underlying impression is always that he would be overwhelmed by sheer numbers. Hence, we must agree that maybe Qin could field as much as the historical records allow, without sacrificing their defense against Warring States. To me, this total is maybe two field armies of 120,000, and from 1/4 up to half a million militia/peasant soldiers of varying quality and loyalty, but never all in place at one time.

Since this all started, this thing has a life of it's own, and I'm having trouble leaving it alone . I'm sure we could haggle about this forever, but at some point speculation about the speculation becomes a law of diminishing returns. Your breakdown of the shower, and sauna, Alexander would be subjected to was pretty humorous Maybe we include callisthetics from swinging heavy swords and thrusting with heavy spears, jogging in full armor, friendly accupuncture treatment from cho ko nus, when Alexander's soldiers enter ambush in armed towns, and foot massage when they chase them through city. Just kidding: the potential for high attrition far from home, on strongly defended foreign soil, -10%/year until he secures regional victory. Chance Alexander is assassinated: 25%, and his successor negotiates a withdrawal: 50%, but is attacked en route: 50%.

I must be honest that I was neither pro-China or pro-Greece for they were the great civilization of that time. I'm just a little anti-Alex for his tyranny and his gay tendency. By the way, Alex was indeed a great commander nonetheless, his high prestige owed to his unparalleled military achievement, and the fact that he might be the first patent holder of interracial marriage and the first European to die of Malaria in Asia. It might not be a bad idea to make a scenario of him, besides, game is just a game.
Therefore, I would just try to end the argument for the milder atmosphere and trying to adapt to this fantasy (yes I'm honest it's a fantasy to me, even more fantasy than Alice's Wonderland)...

It's quite interesting that you finally have put the percentage to your estimation, which suits my taste. Just few things want to remind is that:
1) Maybe it's more possible if Alex is collaborating with the Xiong Nu tribe, and the percentage of success is much higher. Due to the following facts:
a) Qiang tribe was relatively a weaker tribe if compared with Xiong Nu. They became the vassal state of Qin in the later Warring States period and their nation was annexed later by Qin Zhao Wang秦昭王.
b) Xiong Nu, in the broadest definition, was the direct ancestor of the later-known Mongolian tribe and the Huns, who was always the most ferocious and aggressive nomad tribe since their first contact with China during the Zhou dynasty.
c) Qiang tribe wasn’t a threat to China since their defeat to Qin in later Warring States, and remember that, on the other hand, the unified China built Great Wall with the blood and sweat of 1/20 of her population to defend against Xiong Nu.
d) Yes, Alex might have a greater possibility to collaborate with Yuezhi, because Yuezhi was an Indo-European tribe as claimed by some historians. Besides, Yuezhi was quite strong before its defeat by Xiong Nu in 177BC.
However, it still has to depend on which path Alex will take. In my point of view, the path with the most possibility is the Silk Road or the path that Huns or Mongolians used hundreds of year after. Maybe you can give him some chances to make alliances with all those tribes.

2) It’s fairly harder for him to cross the YangTze river than Gobi desert. Alex, at least up to my decent knowledge about him, never fought a naval warfare. Besides, it requires a daring supposition that he could employ the local shipwrights to build him the ships (remember that Greek ships are mostly designed for the sea battle not river). If not, it will be a tough fight. The Chinese text recorded that a type of ship called Lou Chuan which was built during the Three Kingdoms Period which can mount more than 2000 soldiers.

By the way, I know little about ship technology of the southern China at that time; but in case you want to make references when you are going to make the Chinese Ship units, I would like to suggest:Lou Chuan( probably the ship of same kind as above), Tu Mao( a ship with ram), Wing ship (middle, large, small), and Qiao Chuan( literary bridge ship, a light ship). Those are the ships favored by the fleet of Wu and Yue, two southern states of China during the Spring And Autumn Period.

 

[nokmirt]

Where?



I've already pointed out how you do it - a quick check of Wikipedia will give you the monsoon seasons and you can do the rest. Here's what your missing, they had a starting and ending point with a known route between. In this case you have a starting route, an unknown end point and a completely unknown route. That's the difference, there is impossibility because its difficult and there is impossibility because nobody knows it exists which to boot is extremely demanding.



It gets better! He didn't even know it existed! Ptolemy working hundreds of years later merely marked in the Golden Chersonese as a solid wall of land and he had "good" information from Greek traders working out of Egypt. Prior to the rise of Ptolemaic Egypt the Greeks had no knowledge of what lay beyond India let alone how to get there by sea - nobody in Europe did even Indian traders had only just begun to reach it in limited numbers!



It wasn't someone. It was many separate traders over the course of centuries who opened it up. I've already posted quotes which show that the route existed in multiple stages, there is significant evidence to show that what little trade existed prior to about the 4th century AD was sporadic and was carried on largely to wit not;





You just don't get it; push on to what? They thought the world bloody well ended.



On the contrary I'm assuming he didn't know that there was a sea route to China full-stop and that it was unlikely he would ever have found out about the sea route.

Your also assuming its possible to hug the coasts, I've already shown that it isn't possible to do so for India's western coast, the same applies to round the tip, and the same applies for rounding the western coast and that is why the route is so demanding - you can only do it if your quick and a large fleet of ships is not going to be quick.

Basically. Silk is just beginning to work its way over from China, the Malays haven't even started trading with Funan yet, and well Funan was merely a way-point and didn't have much in the way of stuff to trade. All the luxuries of the east don't exist yet - no spice, little if any silk mostly from the overland route, and Indian itself had little in the way of value.



... says the person who went "he could have done it by sea..." What pray are your scholarly credentials?

Ok Masada I agree the Southern route is an impossibility

 

[nokmirt]

Where?



I've already pointed out how you do it - a quick check of Wikipedia will give you the monsoon seasons and you can do the rest. Here's what your missing, they had a starting and ending point with a known route between. In this case you have a starting route, an unknown end point and a completely unknown route. That's the difference, there is impossibility because its difficult and there is impossibility because nobody knows it exists which to boot is extremely demanding.



It gets better! He didn't even know it existed! Ptolemy working hundreds of years later merely marked in the Golden Chersonese as a solid wall of land and he had "good" information from Greek traders working out of Egypt. Prior to the rise of Ptolemaic Egypt the Greeks had no knowledge of what lay beyond India let alone how to get there by sea - nobody in Europe did even Indian traders had only just begun to reach it in limited numbers!



It wasn't someone. It was many separate traders over the course of centuries who opened it up. I've already posted quotes which show that the route existed in multiple stages, there is significant evidence to show that what little trade existed prior to about the 4th century AD was sporadic and was carried on largely to wit not;





You just don't get it; push on to what? They thought the world bloody well ended.



On the contrary I'm assuming he didn't know that there was a sea route to China full-stop and that it was unlikely he would ever have found out about the sea route.

Your also assuming its possible to hug the coasts, I've already shown that it isn't possible to do so for India's western coast, the same applies to round the tip, and the same applies for rounding the western coast and that is why the route is so demanding - you can only do it if your quick and a large fleet of ships is not going to be quick.

Basically. Silk is just beginning to work its way over from China, the Malays haven't even started trading with Funan yet, and well Funan was merely a way-point and didn't have much in the way of stuff to trade. All the luxuries of the east don't exist yet - no spice, little if any silk mostly from the overland route, and Indian itself had little in the way of value.



... says the person who went "he could have done it by sea..." What pray are your scholarly credentials?

I said it was a probable route he could have taken. I was not aware of the difficulties making that an impossibility. I figured he had a reasonable chance for success, for saying that accept my apology. I primarily have studied Napoleon, and the World Wars. I really never studied Indian History except for Alexanders part in India, and that of the Duke of Wellington. Did you mean moving around the tip of India around to the eastern coast of the peninsula? Or is it both coasts that get the monsoons?

 

[civ_king]

Masada, quick query- what do you do? you seem to have a vast knowledge of nautical related material

 

[innonimatu]

How was it expensive? The cost of equipping four vessels to take some "Spaniards" across the sea was not all that considerable (it came from discretionary spending if that is what you mean). What your missing is that it was the result of a whole series of fortuitous events including the Reconquista which yielded the technological edge required to make the Naos, Carracks; the bases on the Canaries which had winds which aided the journey and a whole series of little baby steps on the way. All of those had historic precedent, they were all moving in their element, the Norse had already reached Iceland and Greenland, physical stepping stones on their journey to the New World and had indeed already made it to the Constantinople via the Black Sea and back via a river system. The Carthaginians took it in baby steps as well, they accumulated the knowledge required to leave the pillars of Hercules and over a period of generations consolidated and disseminated that knowledge such that they were eventually capable of making that final leap.

Yes, but there must be a motive behind it. Else an explorer may make a voyage, but the knowledge acquired will be lost with no one ready to make use of it.
The Carthaginians went for Gibraltar because they were finding people to trade with as they went. After the straits they went north, where there were trade opportunities, the desolate shore of Africa were not attractive except for the occasional odd explorer.

The Vikings went out in search of land and plunder, and even though they probably found continental America they didn't consider the land worth the trouble to explore - there was no sustained effort to do it because each their expeditions were usually organized independently and had short-term goals.

The west coast of Africa was so uninteresting for everyone for centuries that it took the involvement of monarchs to push people to explore it - and even that initially to find the source of the gold which made its way though the desert into Morocco.

North America was also probably known to some late medieval european fisherman, but their only interest was in the fish... Much later Columbus spent years trying to get the funds to organize is trip to "Asia" - even if it was indeed not that expensive to european monarchs of even some trading concerts, had they been interested. There was the ability, but not the interest! It remained true even of Australia right into the late 18th century! I'm sure that its cost must have been explorer centuries before Cook - it was well withing the ability of the portuguese and the dutch who had been around for almost 200 years. If the american cost and even vast tracts of its interior was quickly explored during the 16th century by people searching for unknown wealth, why wouldn't Australia be? I expect that it was explored, found mostly inhabited and far less attractive that the well-developed areas of Asia, and ignored for 200 years.

We were never talking about a sea route to India unless the Straits of Malacca and the the Isthmus of Kra are part of India now... I also don't see any ancient dynasty pushing forward the sea map as part of any single sustained project either.

My mistake, I meant China there. And yes, the Hellenistic dynasties were simply too busy warring with each other. Long-term exploration projects would also not be motivated for trade (the ruler's approach was more straightforward: tax or steal what is at hand). But an expansionist would-be conqueror might just organize such an exploration effort, if he ran out of interesting places to attack nearby...

Oh, ok, I admit that it isn't very realistic. I mean, to Alexander India was probably the end of the world which mattered already, and that he could attack by land.

 

[Masada]

I said it was a probable route he could have taken. I was not aware of the difficulties making that an impossibility. I figured he had a reasonable chance for success, for saying that accept my apology. I primarily have studied Napoleon, and the World Wars. I really never studied Indian History except for Alexanders part in India, and that of the Duke of Wellington. Did you mean moving around the tip of India around to the eastern coast of the peninsula? Or is it both coasts that get the monsoons?

No problem - that particular region in history is my turf; much like Dachs reigns supreme over all the stuff he does. Single vessels over a period of time could round the tip of India and probably make it to the Bay of Bengal with some luck and with some significant patience. That is possible albeit difficult and unlikely in the extreme considering the expected pay-offs. Any further and your off into fantasy it wasn't going to happen not in anyone's lifetime.

Masada, quick query- what do you do? you seem to have a vast knowledge of nautical related material

Apparently I'm an economist... but I get treated like an accountant.

Yes, but there must be a motive behind it. Else an explorer may make a voyage, but the knowledge acquired will be lost with no one ready to make use of it.

Where's the motive in rounding India?

The Carthaginians went for Gibraltar because they were finding people to trade with as they went. After the straits they went north, where there were trade opportunities, the desolate shore of Africa were not attractive except for the occasional odd explorer.

At this stage of history eastern India is probably somewhat analogous to North Africa; contrast is key; you have the wealth of the North arrayed running East-West along an axis which falls short of hitting the Eastern coast which doesn't compared favorably to the relatively poor South which is yet to fully develop and which historically was not all that important for providing goods in any case.

The Vikings went out in search of land and plunder, and even though they probably found continental America they didn't consider the land worth the trouble to explore - there was no sustained effort to do it because each their expeditions were usually organized independently and had short-term goals.

Even assuming that you had a monarch willing to fund an exploration what would your goals be? Fall off the edge of the world or sail into impenetrable ocean?!

The west coast of Africa was so uninteresting for everyone for centuries that it took the involvement of monarchs to push people to explore it - and even that initially to find the source of the gold which made its way though the desert into Morocco.

The operative and unspoken assumption behind this is that they had the skills to do it and the knowledge to actually know what they were searching for.

North America was also probably known to some late medieval european fisherman, but their only interest was in the fish... Much later Columbus spent years trying to get the funds to organize is trip to "Asia" - even if it was indeed not that expensive to european monarchs of even some trading concerts, had they been interested. There was the ability, but not the interest!

I don't doubt it however you seem to be forgetting that Spain didn't just have an interest it had the whether-all to actually do something - Alexander had no reason or interest to take the sea route to China or indeed to even go around India the interest and the overarching reason didn't exist.

It remained true even of Australia right into the late 18th century! I'm sure that its cost must have been explorer centuries before Cook - it was well withing the ability of the portuguese and the dutch who had been around for almost 200 years. If the american cost and even vast tracts of its interior was quickly explored during the 16th century by people searching for unknown wealth, why wouldn't Australia be? I expect that it was explored, found mostly inhabited and far less attractive that the well-developed areas of Asia, and ignored for 200 years.

Makassar and Abel Tasman. Here's what your missing, there was no reason to round India, there wasn't anything on the other coast, there wasn't anything in Bengal, there wasn't anything in Malasyia, nor in Indonesia (in the last two cities were just beginning to evolve) and nor was there anything at all that might have piqued the interest of anyone; spice wasn't known, benjamin gum was known, camphor wasn't known, there was absolutely no freaking reason to go that route (heck it didn't even exist as far as people were concerned!).

My mistake, I meant China there. And yes, the Hellenistic dynasties were simply too busy warring with each other. Long-term exploration projects would also not be motivated for trade (the ruler's approach was more straightforward: tax or steal what is at hand). But an expansionist would-be conqueror might just organize such an exploration effort, if he ran out of interesting places to attack nearby...

Not going to happen.

Oh, ok, I admit that it isn't very realistic. I mean, to Alexander India was probably the end of the world which mattered already, and that he could attack by land.

The only instance of reality reaching fantasy I can think off

*

It would be the equivalent of Columbus setting off into the Atlantic with galleys from Spain, with no real sailors on his craft, with no maritime expertise, and just deciding on whim to die.

 

[vogtmurr]

Instead of forgiving I must appreciate your charitable deed by introducing me this incredible passage which is from the "international collaborative" source you have given me just now...
....

I must be honest that I was neither pro-China or pro-Greece for they were the great civilization of that time. I'm just a little anti-Alex for his tyranny and his gay tendency. By the way, Alex was indeed a great commander nonetheless, his high prestige owed to his unparalleled military achievement, and the fact that he might be the first patent holder of interracial marriage and the first European to die of Malaria in Asia. It might not be a bad idea to make a scenario of him, besides, game is just a game.
Therefore, I would just try to end the argument for the milder atmosphere and trying to adapt to this fantasy (yes I'm honest it's a fantasy to me, even more fantasy than Alice's Wonderland)...

It's quite interesting that you finally have put the percentage to your estimation, which suits my taste. Just few things want to remind is that:
1) Maybe it's more possible if Alex is collaborating with the Xiong Nu tribe, and the percentage of success is much higher. Due to the following facts:
a) Qiang tribe was relatively a weaker tribe if compared with Xiong Nu. They became the vassal state of Qin in the later Warring States period and their nation was annexed later by Qin Zhao Wang秦昭王.
b) Xiong Nu, in the broadest definition, was the direct ancestor of the later-known Mongolian tribe and the Huns, who was always the most ferocious and aggressive nomad tribe since their first contact with China during the Zhou dynasty.
c) Qiang tribe wasn’t a threat to China since their defeat to Qin in later Warring States, and remember that, on the other hand, the unified China built Great Wall with the blood and sweat of 1/20 of her population to defend against Xiong Nu.
d) Yes, Alex might have a greater possibility to collaborate with Yuezhi, because Yuezhi was an Indo-European tribe as claimed by some historians. Besides, Yuezhi was quite strong before its defeat by Xiong Nu in 177BC.
However, it still has to depend on which path Alex will take. In my point of view, the path with the most possibility is the Silk Road or the path that Huns or Mongolians used hundreds of year after. Maybe you can give him some chances to make alliances with all those tribes.

2) It’s fairly harder for him to cross the YangTze river than Gobi desert. Alex, at least up to my decent knowledge about him, never fought a naval warfare. Besides, it requires a daring supposition that he could employ the local shipwrights to build him the ships (remember that Greek ships are mostly designed for the sea battle not river). If not, it will be a tough fight. The Chinese text recorded that a type of ship called Lou Chuan which was built during the Three Kingdoms Period which can mount more than 2000 soldiers.

By the way, I know little about ship technology of the southern China at that time; but in case you want to make references when you are going to make the Chinese Ship units, I would like to suggest:Lou Chuan( probably the ship of same kind as above), Tu Mao( a ship with ram), Wing ship (middle, large, small), and Qiao Chuan( literary bridge ship, a light ship). Those are the ships favored by the fleet of Wu and Yue, two southern states of China during the Spring And Autumn Period.

Thanks. You honor me with a well-thought out and enlightening response.

Yes I knew about a few of Alex's atrocities but that passage I quoted from the upper reaches of the Indus was a bit of an eye-opener for me.

Most people believe bisexuality was the norm in his time and place, the stories around Alex and friendship with Hephaestion went beyond childhood memories and military comraderie. It seems from the motion picture that Hephaestion was the last Macedonian General Alex felt he could confide in and trust with his life. Well, you know such a strong pair bonding is what made Thebe's Sacred Band a pretty badass bunch, but Alex (Philip actually) killed them all.

What makes Alex so fascinating is he was a mixture of extreme virtues, passions, and villainy. He never lost his heroics, but was beginning to show signs of increasing paranoia and despotism. However, he also used it to pursue ambitions present day historians would consider far-seeing and just. His men still loved him even after he marched them home though the desert. It is because he died young that he is immortalized as he is; and why people sometime speculate what he might have done differently, or if he lived longer. They see the potential for a truly extraordinary and enlightened ruler. However, considering all, he used up nine lives before he died of malaria.

by the way - I like your description of Chinese ships and we should definitely consider them in any scenario. Unfortunately if a fleet from the Persian Gulf or India tried to catch up with him (because they don't know any better) only a few scattered survivors or rumours of their ultimate fate would ever return.

 

[civ_king]

so it is settled then?

 

[vogtmurr]

Is what settled ? I think this would have been a feasible undertaking, and it is a worthy match up, beyond that very little else is settled unanimously; but time is not on Alexander's side in this scenario.

The outcome of what is likely two large decisive battles is an unknown, and subsequently that modifies Alexander's logistics and morale, and the ability to sustain a siege of the capital or other major city he needs to establish a power base. I did not speculate on any significant defection or intervention in the decisive phase, other than some disaffected minor vassals may withhold their support if Alexander starts to win, not enough to guarantee victory.

As far as I'm concerned there is a workable framework to start with, including approximate numbers, percentages, and the relative strengths of some of the missile/skirmisher troops. We could also simulate the journey itself and possible encounters/alliances with western nomadic kingdoms.

Hypothetical outcomes are simplified; where it might be argued it is 60:40 or 40:60 I've stated it is 50:50, and minority probabilities are proportionately smaller, but not precise. I created a possible story line, a bit fictional, but it is intended to represent any combination of likely variables which adds up to an opportunity to vie for control if Qin is under significant duress. A further development of logical outcomes is certainly possible depending on how much time and methodical reasoning people want to put into it, and it will evolve according to previous outcomes and conditions. I don't know whether anyone else is interested in pursuing this now, but I think we may have other priorities for a little while. However, I would still like to see some work (independently or not) on the composition of Alexander and Qin's armies as the next step.

I owe Cipher_101 a bit more of an explanation; but I'll get to that later.

I found several references to Macedonian weapons of the day being made of iron, I can't confirm it with a single statement but I would say the burden of proof is on others to say I'm wrong - so to be fair, I would say neither side has any significant advantage in terms of metal quality. Some specialized units may capture it in their individual statistics. The use of fire and smoke as weapons is established, river crossings would be a challenge, and no fleet is going to help Alexander in western China.