Alexanders Strategic Blunder?

[Segestan]

Alexander

[Ursus]

To the degree that the Greeks on the mainland were even aware of the Italic peoples, they regarded them as rustics who posed little threat. The later Rise of Rome was a total shock to the Greek pysche, and writers like Polybius had to grapple with it.

 

Alexander wanted the riches of the East and its potent politico-religious traditions. These are things that the Latin towns could not afford him. Then too the rallying cry of revenge against Persia for the invasions of Greece was something that held his armies together, a cohesive force that would not have existed if he had marched West.

 

Simply put, he had every reason for attacking Persia and almost none for attacking Italy. Alexander was not so great a strategic genius that he could look three hundred years into the future and see the almost miraculous conquest of the Mediterranean by Rome.

[Segestan]

Excellent points.

 

But South Italy was populated by mostly Greek settlers. The Hellens ruled in the South from their empire in Syracuse with King Dionysius I. I think they understood the strategic importance better than to see Rome as non-threats.

A cystal ball however, was not needed. The Gauls had been at war with Macedonian and Persian Armies for centuries. In fact the Macedonians had collaborated with Persian Forces as they moved East to west through Macedonian Territory.

 

Yes , of course you are correct in your analysis of Alexanders visions in the east. But even without the knowledge of Romes rising power ; still moving on the West first would have gave Alexander vast resources in Gold and Manpower. He would have far easier have defeated all foes after his Western Conquest.

 

regards,

[Tobias]

I agree. With the exotic, rich and completely different way of life in the east from that of the Italian peoples, Alexander was bound to go east. What was west? A few greek colonies and barbarian peoples, not worth the effort of conquering. Whereas east was the navel of the world; grand palaces, mystic religions and deities, great cities like Babylon, Ctestiphon and the wonders of the world like that Arch (can't offhand remember what it was called). Great riches, exotic women, legends and heroes.

But an interesting train of thought would be if Alexander had gone west and instead of conquering Rome, went north and encountered the gallic tribes and even the germanic tribes. If the Romans could not totally master the germans, how would Alexander go?

[Segestan]

" If the Romans could not totally master the germans, how would Alexander go?'

 

Probably not real well. The Gauls, Dardanians , Thracians and afew others were very savage warriors. Alexander could not have put enough manpower in the fields. Macedonia was simply not large enough to conquer the Northern races. Rome however would have battled Macedonia forces on a more professional level with the Macedonians probably being the superior Troops. At least in My view.

 

The Northern Gauls and Germanics were good metalsmiths and hunters. But had No siege warfare ability . This is why they never defeated Rome. to Battle the Germanic tribes meant savage fighting. Alexander Phalanx and Calvary would have been tested to it's limit of organization. I don't think Macedonia could have won that one.

 

regards,

[PerfectimusPrime]

The Northern Gauls and Germanics were good metalsmiths and hunters. But had No siege warfare ability . This is why they never defeated Rome. to Battle the Germanic tribes meant savage fighting. Alexander Phalanx and Calvary would have been tested to it's limit of organization. I don't think Macedonia could have won that one.

 

regards,

 

The Germanics were not good fighters, they were savage yes, but they lacked any kind of organization, discipline, regular army ETC. Also, they were low in numbers, so there were no huge armies of Celts or Germanics.

 

Battle with Germanics didn't mean savage fighting; it simply meant a long time fighting against minor skirmishes, bandits and slaughering a dis-orderly germanic army after another. This is why they never defeated Rome, they didn't have any which to use to defeat Rome, they were simply pastoral semi-nomads.

 

Roman army was almost every possible way superior to Germanic armies, so was Macedonian army.

 

Macedonian Phalanx would have utterly defeated a Celtic or Germanic army.

[Segestan]

I thought the Celts and Gauls had large numbers of warriors?

 

In 397 BC ; 8 Celtic tribes banded together , marched into the Po Valley. In fact this was a result of over-populations in their own territories. Most of the young peoples were forced to attack neighboring tribes so that they might gain land and houses.

At any rate; I would like to think the Macedonian Phalanx could have " Utterly Destroyed" them.

Rome had at that time, if not the best units in the world, than surely a very close second; but still they fought these Celtic warriors for centuries.

I feel that being as how intelligent many persons of Germanic or Celt stock can be: I'd even bet that the Northern Tribes were a very clever association of foes. An enemy who took full advantage of every rock and tree. If the Gauls were not organized as a true Military power , why then do you think Attulas I invadered Pergaman ? They did Not have the organization skills of the Roman or Macedonian corps, but they fought with such a verocity , had long swords, were taller than others, in mass , that they often slaughtered their enemies.

however, you do have valid points . I agree; Rome and Macedonia were vastly superior culturally and Militarily.

 

 

regards,

[barca]

" If the Romans could not totally master the germans, how would Alexander go?'

 

Probably not real well. The Gauls, Dardanians , Thracians and afew others were very savage warriors. Alexander could not have put enough manpower in the fields. Macedonia was simply not large enough to conquer the Northern races. Rome however would have battled Macedonia forces on a more professional level with the Macedonians probably being the superior Troops. At least in My view.

 

The Northern Gauls and Germanics were good metalsmiths and hunters. But had No siege warfare ability . This is why they never defeated Rome. to Battle the Germanic tribes meant savage fighting. Alexander Phalanx and Calvary would have been tested to it's limit of organization. I don't think Macedonia could have won that one.

 

regards,

 

I doubt that the Gauls or Germans would have had the same success againt Hellenistic armies as the Romans did. Remebering Aemilius Paulus's success at Pydna, he was able to dismantle the phalanx by inserting his maniples into the gaps that occurred as the phalanx advanced. In theory, the Germans or Gauls could have done the same, but I doubt that they were organized enough to see the big picture and pull off such a critical maneuver.

[Fafnir]

I have to agree that it would be rather pointless to expand west at the time. Other than Italy, the rest of the west was all "barbaric" and wouldnt be able to be easily subdued. Remember if the Persian empire fell in the East he could easily take over, but with the barbarians he would have to take them out tribe by tribe.

 

Besides, what's the point of taking barbarian lands? They dont have treasure like the Easterners did.

[Valens]

I think the whole of History would have been changed : Carthage would have never fallen

 

How do you suppose that?

 

Had the Makedonians gone west they would inevitably have come into conflict with Carthage. If you were interested in Sicily or Southern Italy, then Carthage was interested in you. They showed several times that they were willing to pounce on the Greeks if they struck into Eastern Sicily, so I can't see the sitting by as the powerful Makedonians attempted to build an empire in the area.

[Segestan]

It would seem the general view is supportive of Alexander's Eastern campaigns.

 

Macedonia was on friendly relations with Carthage through most of there history. I agree Carthage would have become concerned with a Macedonian Mediterranean Empire; even possibly leading to War. On more analysis ; I believe you are correct.

 

regards,

[barca]

I doubt that the Gauls or Germans would have had the same success againt Hellenistic armies as the Romans did. Remebering Aemilius Paulus's success at Pydna, he was able to dismantle the phalanx by inserting his maniples into the gaps that occurred as the phalanx advanced. In theory, the Germans or Gauls could have done the same, but I doubt that they were organized enough to see the big picture and pull off such a critical maneuver.

 

Follow-up of my prevoius post. Here is an example of how Alexander was able to handle barbarian armies:

 

"Here, in May, 335 BC, is the first use in Arrian of the magic Greek word, pothos regarding Alexander's actions - he describes Alexander's passionate 'yearning' to cross to the other side of the river, not only to attack, but just to discover what was there. Across the Danube was a large force of foot and cavalry - perhaps 14,000 men - to dispute the crossing. With cunning, Alexander chose to cross his army at night; as there were insufficient boats, he had his men fill their leather tents with plumped hay, using them as flotation devices to swim the river (few, if any, of the Macedonians could swim). At dawn, the Macedonian cavalry charge broke the warriors of the Getae, who fled from the nearby town with their women and children. After his successful coup, Alexander plundered the town and razed it to the ground so it could not be a magnet for further revolt."

 

"Alexander now made for Pelium on the river Erigon in Illyria, a town occupied by the rebel leader, Cleitus. Before the battle, Alexander drew up his entire army, "...in mass formation 120 deep, posting on either wing 200 cavalrymen, with instructions to make no noise and to obey orders smartly." (Arrian, 6) Shouting to the infantry to raise their spears, Alexander then put his army through infantry manouvers and intricate drill which deeply intimidated the watching enemy. Then he charged, and the enemy abandoned the position and fled."

 

"Perhaps most importantly, in the very dawn of his military career, Alexander showed that he could flexibly deal with guerrilla attacks; by far the majority of the actions he would fight in Asia would be of this nature, rather than set-piece battles. Like all great commanders, his actions north of Macedon prefigured the qualities that would make him a military legend in Persia."

 

I would venture to say that he did a better job against guerrilla tactics than many Roman commnders. Remember what happened at Teutoberger Wald.

 

For more details see below

 

http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Article/591123

[Hamilcar Barca]

As has already been stated, Why the hell would Alexander want to invade Italy in 335BC? The Romans were at this stage at an interlude between the 1st and 2nd Samnite wars and had yet to conquer any significant portion of Italy. In fact at this point in history it was the Samnites who had the greater amount of territory. That having been said, Alexander of Epirus (Alexanders brother-in-law) did wage his own war out west against the Samnites but he was killed in 331BC before much was accomplished. Out East was where the threats and money were percieved to be at the time.

 

It would still be another 50 years before Rome had anything to do with the Greeks at which point they would be invaded by the Epirote army in the model and standing profesion of Alexanders. Whether or not you can compare Pyrrhus to Alexander is a slippery subject though.

[Favonius Cornelius]

Here is one for you. If Alexander kept to the true Macedonian ways and not been a drunken fool on many occations, could he have convinced his men to march into India and beyond?

[barca]

It would still be another 50 years before Rome had anything to do with the Greeks at which point they would be invaded by the Epirote army in the model and standing profesion of Alexanders. Whether or not you can compare Pyrrhus to Alexander is a slippery subject though.

 

 

I agree that it is hard to make valid comparisons between Pyrrhus and Alexander. One thing is clear, Pyrrhus faced a much more reslient opponenet.

 

Pyrrhus did not have much success with his cavalry against the Romans. Was this because his cavalry force was inferior to Alexander's, or was he facing a much more tenacious opponent than any that Alexander ever encountered? In the Battle of Heraclea, Pyrrhus attempted the Alexandr-style cavalry charge, but he was driven back. The Roman cavalry held their own quite well. Somewhat perplexing when you consider that the Romans were not known for their cavalry. He was only able to make a difference when he brought forth his elephants.

 

The obvious question is what would Alexander have done differently. Would his cavalry charge have been any better? Would he have been able to exploit any weaknesses in the Roman lines? Were the Romans too disciplined to allow themselves to be broken up by a cavalry charge?