The 'Best' Ancient General
- Thread starter markdienekes
- Start date
Nah. Logistics in the Hellenistic period was mostly just finding food and water and shelter for your troops and maybe scrounging replacement weapons every so often. Neither of those things requires a supply line unless you're in a friggin desert.
It's quite the mixture of vehemence and ignorance you're displaying there. Mountains? What, is he going to take a detour through the Himalaya for kicks and giggles? Holiday in the Vindhyas for all Alexander's pezoi? All this dancing, and nobody except for the first person has mentioned a particularly good reason for Alexander not to have made it all the way to the Pacific.Who're demoralized? Whoa, look here, you finally managed to get to the part that was said what, last page? Congratulations! Well done! Give the man the friggin Chichele Professorship of the History of War!
Not even I can believe that - at least before he returned to the west and regrouped. Alexander himself I think finally accepted that. (Though it is true the account of Chandragupta speculates that Alex might have sensed a unique opportunity in India)
I think its interesting to speculate on what might have happened in the west if he hadn't drank himself to death.
I think its interesting to speculate on what might have happened in the west if he hadn't drank himself to death.
Yeah, because the West is soooo much easier to roll over than the East. 
Is it really that hard to understand that the fact that he couldn't rely on having an army at all is the chief reason he was unlikely to conquer India?
Is it really that hard to understand that the fact that he couldn't rely on having an army at all is the chief reason he was unlikely to conquer India?Hence he needed to regroup - even if the exhausted veterans after Hydaspes didn't mutiny, they would have needed a massive injection of reliable manpower, or perish from attrition in India, crossing the Irrawaddy, Salween, etc etc. If he managed to reach the Pacific, not that they had a clue where or what it was; he probably wouldn't have made it back; and his empire would have crumbled.
Of course the west would have been a bigger challenge than anything he had done, but at least it was closer to his center of power.
Of course the west would have been a bigger challenge than anything he had done, but at least it was closer to his center of power.
[21:43:36] <+Yui> also are you just [REDACTED]ing with West India Man, or did Alexandros have a reasonable shot at pan asian conquest
[21:43:40] <@Dachs> no
[21:43:46] <@Dachs> I'm [REDACTED]ing with him and LightSpectra
[21:43:49] <@Dachs> but it's their own damn fault
[21:43:52] <@Dachs> for putting up [REDACTED]ty reasons
[21:44:02] <@Dachs> the first person to talk about alexander was much smarter
[21:44:55] <+Yui> is that the only good reason?
[21:45:13] <+Yui> relative army size to population doesn't seem to be important
[21:45:25] <+Yui> given that the Turks basically ruled the entire middle-east for a couple centuries
[21:45:37] <+Yui> give-or-take a few major regions
[21:45:40] <+Yui> and centuries
[21:46:04] <@Dachs> no
[21:46:06] <@Dachs> not the only good reason
[21:46:12] <@Dachs> but the only good reason in that thread so far
[21:46:28] <@Dachs> relative army size to population is irrelevant, as you correctly point out
[21:46:39] <@Dachs> relative army size to army size is also irrelevant
[21:46:52] <@Dachs> the best reason is indeed that his soldiers said "[REDACTED] this"
[21:46:56] <@Dachs> can't win a war without an army
[21:47:02] <@Dachs> another good reason: can't control everything
[21:47:15] <@Dachs> if he'd kept going, there's no way he could hold onto everything in the rear
[21:43:40] <@Dachs> no
[21:43:46] <@Dachs> I'm [REDACTED]ing with him and LightSpectra
[21:43:49] <@Dachs> but it's their own damn fault
[21:43:52] <@Dachs> for putting up [REDACTED]ty reasons
[21:44:02] <@Dachs> the first person to talk about alexander was much smarter
[21:44:55] <+Yui> is that the only good reason?
[21:45:13] <+Yui> relative army size to population doesn't seem to be important
[21:45:25] <+Yui> given that the Turks basically ruled the entire middle-east for a couple centuries
[21:45:37] <+Yui> give-or-take a few major regions
[21:45:40] <+Yui> and centuries
[21:46:04] <@Dachs> no
[21:46:06] <@Dachs> not the only good reason
[21:46:12] <@Dachs> but the only good reason in that thread so far
[21:46:28] <@Dachs> relative army size to population is irrelevant, as you correctly point out
[21:46:39] <@Dachs> relative army size to army size is also irrelevant
[21:46:52] <@Dachs> the best reason is indeed that his soldiers said "[REDACTED] this"
[21:46:56] <@Dachs> can't win a war without an army
[21:47:02] <@Dachs> another good reason: can't control everything
[21:47:15] <@Dachs> if he'd kept going, there's no way he could hold onto everything in the rear
sophie
Break My Heart
Sounds like Alexander had too much junk in his trunk.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
I thought your last post to me was supposed to be a bitter admission of my rightness, so I stopped posting. Huh.
vogtmurr said:
Yeah, no. Mostly, because the Burma-Yunnan route down past Erhai and Dali didn't exist but also because the thought of actually slogging overland through Burma strikes me as stupid when the sea route is utterly hopeless rather than just plain impossible.
(yes i just coined the term) (comes from syn (along/the same)+ patris (home country).
MajKira
King
As you could see in Oliver Stones Great Alexander movie, his mom wanted him to take her to Babylon, but Alex never did. One of his biggest failures. And he drank himself to death? Why should he have done that? Becuz he wanted take more land like Arabia and Rome and Karthago
If I understood you correctly, both of these options reeeallly sucked... but not knowing this, somebody might have actually proved us wrong ! A sea journey from say the Ganges delta should have been possible, after reaching it by land/river. Certainly quicker, after bypassing the long sail around a storm-tossed subcontinent.
@Majkira: Curious, why do you say not bringing Olympias to Babylon a big mistake ? Might she have looked after him, saved him from overdrinking, warned him of plots ?
vogtmurr said:
Yessir, one significantly more than the other however.
vogtmurr said:
Doubtful. One doesn't make a trip along a route that didn't exist.
Nope. You would need to go north of the Ganges. The Ganges delta is not condusive to ships traversing it at this stage.
vogtmurr said:
Traversing Cape Cormoron would be difficult, if not, impossible. And not for the reasons your supposing.
really.... ok, but explorers rarely needed sign posts to find their own route, and they could rely on local guides.
Seriously can you be sure of that that ? Nothing like galleons or triremes, but a fleet of reasonably deep hulled 'pentekonters', almost longships. Nearchus' fleet was a large number of such craft. I don't want to get too bogged down in this exercise, lets presume they knew how to build ships, but question the presumption that a fleet couldn't exit from the main channel of the river. The approach is better, Ganges could be a highway rather than an obstacle in India, but if the better launch point was further along the coast, thats ok too, lots of good hardwoods there. And its a reasonably short cruise along the coast, with river estuaries they can take shelter in, to the isthmus of Kra, where hell, they could walk to the Pacific if they wanted.
likely a very turbulent strait, like Cape Horn at the end of a large land mass; I think there's a string of 'big rocks' across it too. So skipping this and the long hazardous journey past sandbars on both coasts, with seasonal monsoons, by entering the Ganges plain instead made the most sense, but would have had its own challenges.
MajKira
King
He should have brought his mum Olympias to Babylon becuz she wanted to be there together with her son. That was so in the movie played by Angelina Jolie. And yeah, approving. I think too, she had looked after him closely and Wiki states he died upon fever. In the movie he died in middle of excess party maybe overdrunken.
Since it's not clear how Alexander died in the first place, it makes no sense to claim that, had Olympias been in Babylon with him, he would not have died. Perhaps he was poisoned, about which she probably could've done nothing. Perhaps he died of a malarial mosquito bite, about which she certainly could have done nothing. Perhaps she would not have prevented him from partying at all. (He's kinda the king.)
Also, Oliver Stone's Alexander movie sucked massive cock. (Hephaistion pun totally intended.) The only reason it's decent is Angelina Jolie playing a made-up character that is only loosely based on the real Olympias; if you want to see her with insufficient clothing, watch Beowulf or something.
Moderator Action: Infracted for language. Keep it decent please!
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Similar threads
