How the FUCK did Alexander take all this territoryfrom a handful

File: koffir.jpg (25KB, 250x201px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 250x201px

Shit had a centralized government.

Cut off the head and everyone else plays ball.
And let's not forget the fact that he married into their royal family and was seen as a better son by the previous rulers mother than Darius III ever was to her.

>>1824778
>had alexander hadn't up and died because of a fucking cold he would have conqured india and maybe China
>His proper heirs could have went east and south into sub saharan africa.
>near world domination before the world even started.
>We could be speaking greek in a turbo advanced social by now
FUCK YOU DISEASE YOU KEK REEEEEEEE

1. Kill the King
2. Be the King
3. Subjects be like "OK"
4. ?????
5. PROFIT!!!1!

>>1824792
>centralized government
Srsly tho.

Lopped the head off a highly centralized empire and took over its' already existing institutions intact.

File: Napoleon-Bonaparte1-e1393973414152.jpg (11KB, 200x229px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 200x229px

>>1824778
>No other war in history has been like this
Most of the wars in history were exactly like that tho.

>>1824778
He didn't, Alexander's conquests didn't recover as much territory in Central Asia or India as Cyrus and Darius did before him. Also:

>duration: 10 years

Why can't Greeks/Macedonians administrate decently?

>>1824811
He never had a chance to push farther into India. His forces were already overexhausted by that point and India was a major power with a virtually endless manpower pool.

>>1824778
Alexander somewhat respected the customs and culture of the people he conquered. He also appointed local nobles as satraps in some of the lands he conquered.

Ruling in those days was different. Alexander didn't literally rule every person and for the majority of people literally nothing changed from him becoming ruler, at least not initially it would over time of course with the spread of new Greek culture.

But basically the chain of commander went to him instead of Darius

>>1824913
This. Nanda Empire had an army of over 200,000 strong. He might have had a chance had he taken some "time off" to recuperate his forces and create a plan of attack,but there was no way he was just going to be able to keep marching past the Indus and win. There's also the matter of his cavalry becoming more and more useless as he pressed east into the jungles of Southern Asia. Not even the Mongols could handle Vietnamese terrain.

File: Man.jpg (12KB, 300x307px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 300x307px

>>1824778
Conquering that area (semitic and asiatic races etc.) was like playing Civ5 on easy difficulty, They were no match for Macedonians on every level. The thing that he NEVER lost a battle is important to understand how Macedonians were superior. Plus these areas were not very populated, it was one city that "claimed" deserts around.

>>1825575
>Iranians
>Semitic
>Asiatic
Here's the (You)

>>1824913
>India was a major power with a virtually endless manpower pool
India was a bunch of petty kingdoms you mean. Which was actually far worse from Alexander's point of view, having to fight a new country every 100km.

>>1824778

Because you're forgetting all the fucking sieges, you idiot

File: Maurya-Empire.png (244KB, 870x386px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 870x386px

>>1825710
This is very false. The biggest power in the Indian Subcontinent at the time of Alexander's conquest was the Nanda Empire, and it was definitely not small or petty.

Plutarch wrote this(The Ganderites are the Nandas):

"As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was thirty-two furlongs, its depth a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at-arms and horsemen and elephants. For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand war elephants."

As for more proof that the Nanda were extremely strong, just 3 years after Alexander's death, Chandragupta I(Called Sandrocottus or Androcottus in Greek/Roman texts), founder of the Mauryan Empire, would become king of the Nandas. It is said that in his youth he saw Alexander himself. Whatever the case, he would be the first person in the history of India to essentially unite the entire Indian-Subcontinent under his rule. He also defeated Seleucus and took all of the holdings that Alexander had conquered in India.

So no, India would not be easy to conquer. Honestly, I do think Alexander could have conquered it if it was closer, but the distance and foreign terrain in India made conquest so much harder. Of course we're starting to dwell in a "what-if" scenario so I'll leave it at that.

>>1824778

World population was considerably lower in Alexander's time.

He didn't conquer every square inch, he conquered the head of state.

Most satraps didn't care who wore the crown, they supported whoever demonstrated their ability to project force in their area unless they were responsible for severe grievances. Alexander cut taxes throughout the empire.

>>1824811
>he would have conqured india and maybe China

Alexanderboos are really some the worst historical could-haves.

>>1824913
>India was a major power

India as a nation did not exist at that time.

Hindus as a population did, and there were a lot of them.

Thankfully they got along pretty well with Greeks, both being of the same Indo-European root culture and all.

>>1825575

Ultimately, this is true in a sense though I would require some qualification of "superior". In what sense of the word?

Too many people studying history forget that before all technological and cultural advancement there is a new kind of man or woman.

Quality of flesh and blood must necessarily come before their products, and this average group quality fluctuates over time due to the semi-random nature of genetic selection.

>>1825888
The Greeks in Baktra did rather well in India. Shame we don't know more.

>>1826646
Wasn't most of their actual population Bactarians though? Who are Iranics?

>>1824778
Alexander basically usurped the Persian Empire. He did not garrison and subjugate every square inch because he did not have nearly enough men.

>>1824778
Persia was already pretty much on the decline and everybody knew it.

These ten thousand Greek mercenaries rebelled against the Persian state and marched on foot all the way out of Persia. Artaxerxes threw everything at them and lost.

Later on, the king of Sparta tried to raise a rebellion in the Ionian islands, and instead of sending an army to fight him, the Persians sent money to bribe Sparta's enemies in Greece to fight them, so that the king said he had been beaten by "thirty thousand archers", because Persian coins have an archer on them.

Alexander was a great guy also. I think it was his virtues, combined with his supreme rule over the Greeks, at a really really good time.

>>1826846
they snownigged around the valleys and broke in after the mauryan empire collapsed.

>>1824811
No he couldn't have conquered India or China you dummy. How the fuck would he have managed that?

>>1827582
They weren't though. They were resurgent and growing back in power. Atarxerxes III aka Atarxerxes Ochus was an extremely competent Achaemenid ruler whose untimely demise at the hands of a certain corrupt court official/eunuch was the death herald of the Achaemenids dynasty. If he hadn't been assassinated, and given he had already proven to be able to consistently check Macedonian power plays and military aggression by Philip II, I think Alexander's invasion of Persia would've likely flattered.

the first people to be conquerd by macedonians were the greeks . and the greeks rebelled as soon as they heard about alexander death . you learn history from tv - series ?

>>1825888

The Nanda Empire was not as strong as the greeks believed. changragupta toppled it within a few years of Alexander's conquest. It is not unlikely to think Alexander - or one of his Generals, could have done the same.

At this time, Alexander's army was around 150,000. There were 30,000 persian phalangites waiting in Persia.

>>1827582

I want this meme to die.

relevant song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OdJqNzOLys

>>1824778
That was a fucking long time ago even in the ancient period, it was hard to control the area.
At the same time, Persia wasn't all that populated everywhere, even much later in history controling one city or fortress would give you dominion over every aspect of life from trade to food production. Ultimately it comes down to cutting the head of the snake, what else can everyone else do with defeated military and whatever held it together fallen apart?

>>1824778
Centralized government.

I've had shits that have lasted longer than his "empire".

>>1824778

>why would the Persians lose a battle and say "well, guess we lose all our territory within a thousand mile radius."

because they lost their army and therefore the means of controlling territory

>No other war in history has been like this, even the Mongols had to win several battles in order to subjugate a place, but Alexander just won a battle and with is humongous amounts of territory.

William the Conqueror took England after fighting one pitched battle, inflicting a few thousand casualties on an English army of less than ten thousand

What would Persian Empire be like if it still existed today

would it have suppressed the rise of Islam?