das said:
He did kill one of his most trusted bodyguards, in OTL.
one guardsman and the entire nobility are
slightlly different things
besides, if its whom i'm thinking of (not clear on the name; vague memory of a particuler action on part of a trusted one) the said body guard was impilacated in a plot on Alexanders life- and in that era, while alexander wasnt overlyl bloody (in fact, he was enlightend in many ways) you still had to do away with potential plotters
Did you even read my summary of the original text? HE DID TAKE ALL THAT.
yar; but like I said; if he did, what army would he use to expand anywhere else? too many forigners in the army, and the homlands woudl never continue to back him; force his veterans to continue, and they would kill him; its just too much denslly populated lands that have blood feuds with eachother to be managable for a nation with a tiny total population like greece and macedon to handle.
And you yourself convinced me before that Italy IS important. There are Greeks there, btw.
thier is a difference; i argued that italy was
valuble and that its importance stemmed from that fact;
however the greeks had no idea what-so-ever about the valuble of italy beyond the Appenine mountains, a land that they couldnt expand into because of staunch and very effective orginized resistence (The samnites, who ledgend has it in the greek world, was a nation founded by a Spartan- a testament to just how tough they were- and considering even alexander left Sparta indipendent, seems he took those fighting reputations into consideration)
point is, the greek didnt know of anything of value in the north of italy; no lucrative trade routes, no truelly mighty nations (although Rome was on the rise, and becoming dominat in this period, it was on fair realtions which the greek states of the south) and even if the did know of somthing valuble in the north, it was to omuch trouble to be arsed into taking, specially with a man power shortage and political resentment that was very, very apperent at the end of Alexanders historical conquests
Not as much from malaria as much from stress.
the stress of malaria, or from not running an empire- alexander was a conqeror- he made himself soem laws, soem cities and appointed other people to rule in his name who did so loyally because they either liked him, respected him, or feared him- bad way of running an empire (but since most of his conqrored nations loved him, it didnt much matter when he was alive) but freed himself up from a great deal fo stress- and allowed for more then a few of those drinking parties he was so fond of.
Before arguing, please accept the original PoD. I didn't come up with it, but anyway, accept it or don't discuss this at all.
accept it; no, I'll argue for a reasonable alexandrian conquest; one where he is able to subdue the old persian colonies in Arbaia, and the tradeing cities in the south west of arabia and
perhaps expansion into nubia; and where he names a sucessor who can hold on to a fiar portion based, ironically, in Egypt, mesopotamia, and arabia- but where persia itself comes away from the yoke either by a native revolt, or from the parthian invasion, and likewise, macedon, the Corthinian league (if it hasnt disbanded) anatolia, an dperhaps cyrenica have all rebelled, and like always, go into infighting for primacy, and where Alexanders son coudl exert soem politcal influcen via bribery tot he rebelled states t keep them busy infighting
His troops were getting less and less Greek from what I could discern. I'll re-read it again, I didn't pay too much attention to such detail...
thats the problem somwhat; I love Rome, but my first great historical interest was none other then Alexander; I've becoem a realist about him; he wasnt the hugelly brilliant conqeror that many seem to love him to be, but he was mighty- but not a god, and he couldnt do everything
Look, I still think that ALEXANDER of that timeline, being a megalomaniac, could order that. He did have some special troops (not unlike Janissaries) that carried out those orders. Most troops refused to kill off Roman brutally, not sure about Sparta and Judea.
was he meglomaniac- yes; was he bloody handed? not unless he was drunk- and it was when he was drunk that he orderd persepolis burned -and regretted horribly the next day- after that, i dont belive we have any intance of of Alexander bruning down any city, no matter how foul his mood- he was a conqeror,he was very self-proud,and he was colossal meglomaniac -but he wasnt a crule man by nature
I do myself believe that the author got carried away with COMPLETE slaughter. And I did myself tell him that before. IMHO its rather more of burning down the cities, as you said, and expelling the people, in Judea at least (see Babylonians and their behaviour there).
babylon and macedon are considerably different- in any event, I suggest you have th eorigional author come and look at my arguments- i have no argument with you, herr Das.
Okay, now before we get further... Xen. Please, write down all of your complaints/questions/problems, in a short form, in one list. Prefferably - without insults, without demonstrations of your fine wit (no sarcasm intended), without typoes. Without long-winded sentances ("lets say this, lets say that..."), because frankly us barbarians tend to be slow when confronted with some of the things you post because of it. You say that you only make typoes when hurried... Don't hurry. Think it over.
my computer broke (again); what time I have latelly is very short; dosent afford mch time to do any of the above :\
Post it. I don't have contact with the author
dammit. If you do ever gain contact with him, tell him to swing by- i have a few words for him
but I'll try to answer your questions based on the text as I understand it. I myself don't really have problems with Alexander ATTACKING Rome, I am more sceptical about success. Not sure about him being able to actually conquer a huge empire like described in the text, but meh. I don't myself believe it to be entirely realistic, though (this is the principal difference between us) I am actually willing to accept this as POSSIBLE, if very improbable. If you were to do this as well, out of politeness if not out of any other reason, it would be appreciated.
while i cant except it as possible, I'll stop making a fuss over it, if, for nothing else, to keep the peace
