Alexander The Great

sorry, meant 'liberate the egyptians' which he did, but glad my freudian slip caused a bit of a discussion:egypt:

However i did think of making Athens and sparta independant greek states also but these citys did technically come under Al's direct rule at the height of his powers
 
ok i dont mean to be bad but i will download this and check but theres noone actully saying its anygood apart from the creator thou i it does sound good coming from him.

anyone esle who has played this and think its worth my time plz let me know stringkingming@hotmail.com
 
right folks i've discovered a new europe to india map and i'm currently waiting for permission to use it in updating this scenario to reflect the world at the time it's gonna be quite something

Keep it real

War what is it good for? urrgh!
 
I don't see why China should be on the map, after all, what did Alexander have to do with CHina. Alexander conquered the Persian Empire, and he was successful because that state had already been created! He had no reason or hope of atacking China successfully, or even India for that matter. :p
 
Sounds like a good idea
 
Originally posted by Ekmek
Well he did invade india. I suggested China because it opens the possibility for a civ player to out-do alex. Although I expect china to be crazy powerful (but all of their units wheeled so they cant cross the himalayas.


Well, Alexander was as likely to conquer China as William the Conqueror was to conquer Russia. Alexander has a myth as a "world conqueror", but we should try to put things into perspective and remember that he merely attacked Persia and took its crown. His invasion of India appears to have been no more than a show of force stroke looting expedition into the Indus valley, an area previous under Persian influence anyway. :eek:
 
Originally posted by calgacus



Well, Alexander was as likely to conquer China as William the Conqueror was to conquer Russia. Alexander has a myth as a "world conqueror", but we should try to put things into perspective and remember that he merely attacked Persia and took its crown. His invasion of India appears to have been no more than a show of force stroke looting expedition into the Indus valley, an area previous under Persian influence anyway. :eek:

Good point i made this trying to keep it as realistic as possible
but why not check out my better 'Alexander the Great 2' scenario it makes this one seem a bit basic
 
In my opinon, Hail Ceasar!
well , Ceasar's dream was to become a new Alexander , although he believed he couldn't achieve it ...

When alexander elegibly assasinated his father he took over raised thebes conquered sparta and took athens

Yo ? What is this ?

When Olympias , queen of Macedonia , elegibly assasinated his father one year after the battle of Chaeronea , Voiotia ( Philip defeated the Southern Greeks there in 338 BC ) , Alexander got the vote of trust from the rest of the Greeks ( except Spartans ) in order to complete his father's dream ...
To conquer Asia ...

Well, Alexander was as likely to conquer China as William the Conqueror was to conquer Russia. Alexander has a myth as a "world conqueror", but we should try to put things into perspective and remember that he merely attacked Persia and took its crown. His invasion of India appears to have been no more than a show of force stroke looting expedition into the Indus valley, an area previous under Persian influence anyway.

Actually , he won Poros , king of India ... And it was the first time the Greek troops had to face war-elephants . As for China ...
The Greeks captured a huge area of the world with 30.000 troops ...
The Chinese , at that time , were having a kind of feudal system , which means they weren't united ...
But , the Greek soldiers were tired after an 11 years campaign , and after they achived the objective of conquering Persia , they weren't willing to keep fighting until they reach the end of the world ...
So , they propably couldn't stand against a huge nation like Chinese ...



Btw , Alexander was planning to invade Western Europe , before his sudden death ...
 
well i'd thought everyone'd given up on this scenario seeing as i'd had no posts for ages, this really is my first attempt at this scenario though check out my alexander the great 2 scenario, it's much better
 
Vasileius Actually said:
Alexander usurped the throne of Persia with 35 or so thousand well-equipped soldiers. Most of the campaign was spent reducing the border tribes of central Asia; the Poros war was not a war of take-over; but more like an atempt to secure the Indian border.

All the garbage about Alexander invasing western Europe or Arabia counts for little; he wouldn't have stood a chance in either locale...although that's just my opinion. However, most likely is that, had he lived, he would have remained on the throne of Persia and been content with that. :goodjob:
 
My comments
A)we dont actually know where the hell Alexander was planning to conqoure next- there is evidence that he planed from everyhting from marching further east, west, and south- never heard of north, but i wouldnt doubt it for Alexander- the point is, he planned to conqoure evey direction, what he got around to would be hard to say- but if things had gone his way, adn his troops hadnt refused to march further east, i think he would have expanded inthat direct first and foremost, fi for nothign else then to kepe his momentum up, and not have to backtrack across the known world to go get at europe and north africa ;)

B)The greeks had faced war elephants as part of the persian army in at least one notable battle

C)Alexander would not have conqoured china- its not a case of his troops couldnt do it, but more a cas eof couldnt get there- Hoplites, Phalanites, arnt ment for either the jungle or mountians seperateing India and China, and Peltasts and Hypaspists wernt slated for the best of results in those terrains either


anyway, good idea, havent played it yet, though i suppose i will get around to it, seems pretty good from all the comments- though you inclusion of the huns should be more properlly they Skythians- the huns didnt comeabout in europe until around 400 CE
 
What if is what if...Alexander could have used the silk road to enter china. But yes his greek troops were fatigued and then mutinied. He had a new plan though as he was training the "successors" persians trained with greek techniques.

Would they have been as good, more obedient probably as skilled maybe. Although in the following wars of the diadochi the veterans of Alex's campaign at an advanced age fought one last battle a beat younger troops soundly.

Of course the quality of china is a question too. by the late stages of the warring states they were not waging decisive war but fought limited campaigns similar to the condotteri of Machiavelli's time. I do believe they had Iron weapons by this time and years later when Mark Antony sent an expedition east and encountered Chinese troops the legions were slaughtered (sorry Xen...)

As far as I have read Alexander mused about taking on the rising Carthiginians which at the time was already expanded in the western med (he did receive emissaries from Rome and Carthage while back in Babylon)


I'll check out the Alex2, and if I get time I may make it possible to have Alex vs Sun Tzu (he was possibly around at that time)
 
If Alexandar had gone to China, he would have been defeated easily by the Chin state. Chin state that located in Western China and united the Chinese world in 221 BC would have probably been the first state he would have encountered.

Not only was China much larger, more powerful than Persia, it was also more technologically advanced than the West (The Chinese considered Persia the West as well as barbaric) along with well organized military training and tactics. Iron was already replaced by steel during this time in China.

During the warring state period of China, each major state could easily deploy an army of 200,000 +. The Chin state also once deployed a pofessional and well trained army of 500,000 against the Zhao. Sun Zhi's Art of War was widely studied and used during that time.


The following is some of the Chinese military formation and weaponary:

Sun Bing's military manual written in 340 b.c. and unearthed in 1972 shows a number of deployments.

Here are some described:

The Wu Îé - five-man squad in line astern.

The Dui ¶Ó - 10 Wu in line abreast (5 men deep and 10 across) 50 men

The Bo ²® - Two Dui in line abreast (5 men deep and 20 across) or line astern (a square 10 men deep and 10 across) 100 men

The Qu Çú - Two Bo in line abreast (5 men deep and 40 across) or line astern (20 men deep and 10 across) 200 men

The Square ·½Õó - made up of several rows of Qu, with the HQ in the middle of the rear row. Not necessarily a true square, can be rectangular. A favourite tactic was to place stronger Qu on the flanks, and then lure the enemy to attack the centre and be outflanked.

The Circle Ô²Õó - a Qu reformed into a ring, with the HQ protected within it. A highly defensive formation.

Dispersed Formation ÊèÕó - increasing the distance between individual Qu in a square, so as to mislead the enemy or divide his forces.

Close Formation ÊýÕó - decreasing the distance between individual Qu in a square, for strength in close-quarter fighting.

The Awl ×¶(zhui)ÐÐÖ®Õó - A wedge (triangle with one point facing forward), a highly offensive formation. Also known in later history as the Male Formation êò(pin)Õó (you'll see why later).

The Wild-Goose-Flight Formation Ñã(yan)ÐÐÖ®Õó - A V-formation with two wings for enveloping the enemy and the HQ in the middle. Or an inverted-V for a defensive formation that can quickly be converted to offensive wedge. The V-formation can also be modified into a flattened U known as the Basket Formation »þ(ji)ÐÎÕó or Female Formation ĵ(mu)Õó, for luring enemy wedges into the centre and then enveloping them.

The Hook Formation ¹³ÐÐÖ®Õó - A line abreast with the two ends sloping inwards to avoid being flanked. Probably most suitable for archers or crossbowmen.

Then there are unorthodox formations such as the Bagua which is a highly flexible formation with high degree of manuvre.

China had a more advanced technology.

By no later than the end of the Spring and Autumn Period (770-476 B.C.), the Chinese developed the technology of the blast furnace. This allowed them to heat the ore above its melting point, and produce cast iron. Among the inventions that made this possible, was the double-action bellows. The manufacture of iron, using a blast furnace to produce a molten metal, greatly expanded production: The process could be continuous, as the molten metal flowed from the reducing furnace, was poured into molds, and made into a large variety of products.
The blast furnace was introduced in Europe, on a wide scale, only in the late 14th Century, almost 2,000 years later. The use of cast iron was, unfortunately, introduced in Europe largely for the production of cannon; Henry VII constructed the first blast furnaces in England. The replacement of the bloom furnace with the blast furnace, increased productivity in the English iron industry 15-fold.
The Chinese were able to manufacture superior tools, that the more primitive European metallurgy was incapable of producing, which led to a substantial advance in productivity throughout the entire economy. As early as the Third Century B.C., the state of Qin appointed government officials to supervise the iron industry, and penalize manufacturers who produced substandard products. The Han Dynasty nationalized all cast-iron manufacture in 119 B.C. Around that time, there were 46 imperial Iron Casting Bureaus throughout the country, with government officials insuring that cast-iron tools were widely available. This included cast-iron plowshares, iron hoes, iron knives, axes, chisels, saws and awls, cast-iron pots, and even toys.

The Chinese also developed methods for the manufacture of steel that were only matched in the West, in the recent period. The characteristics of iron alloys are related to the carbon content. Cast iron generally has a high carbon content, which makes it strong, but brittle. Steel, which is an alloy of iron with a low carbon content, is strong and more durable. The use of steel in agricultural implements was introduced, on a wide scale, during the Tang Dynasty (618-907 A.D.). This led to a further improvement in productivity.

In the Second Century B.C., the Chinese developed what became known in the West as the Bessemer process. They developed a method for converting cast iron into steel, by blowing air on the molten metal, which reduced the carbon content. In 1845, William Kelly brought four Chinese steel experts to Kentucky, and learned this method from them, for which he received an American patent. However, he went bankrupt, and his claims were made over to the German, Bessemer, who had also developed a similar process.


The Chinese also had superior weapons and tools:

Pilum is a primitive weapon for limitd throwing power. With the presense of crossbow, their is noneed for weapons of inferior power. As for pavises, the warring state shield industry was highly advanced, the shields are made in fine hide along with maximu care, the rules were stric, if rat bitten marks were found, the shield carers are severely punished. Shields are made through careful calculation of the time in drying the wood and hide to maximize defense power. And designed in such shape to deflect missiles.

Sun Zhi lived in 5th century BC during the Spring and Autumn peiord (2 hundred years before Alexander) but his war mannual was widely studied during warring state period of China.
 
Back
Top Bottom