Alexander To Carthage And Italy

[Rameses the Great]

I'm guessing if he used all white people, keeping off the mutiny, he could have damn well conquered africa.

 

If I'm not mistaken the Greeks did not consider themselves 'white.' They considered themselves as Mediterranian and referred to the 'Keltoi' as white.

[WotWotius]

How many men and animals would A. have taken around Africa - if that was one of his objects? Where and how would they have been supplied? Something was known of the East; what was known of 'Darkest Africa'?

 

To quote Robert Lane Fox's Alexander '...Arabia, Carthage, Sicily, the Caspian, none was as wild an ambition as the first invasion of Asia with few ships, money or men.' If Alexander could bring victory with little supplies in Asia, he would have been able to bring victory in Africa.

Edited September 19, 2006 by WotWotius

[Gaius Octavius]

To quote Robert Lane Fox's Alexander '...Arabia, Carthage, Sicily, the Caspian, none was as wild an ambition as the first invasion of Asia with few ships, money or men.' If Alexander could bring victory with little supplies in Asia, he would have been able to bring victory in Africa.

 

Your conclusion in re Mr. Fox is as valid as any when it comes to 'ifs'.

[WotWotius]

...as is yours.

[Krackalackin]

Well, that would have created a United Nations rather quicker than anyone expected. But don't stop there. Alexander's coastal exploration of Arabia would surely not have satisfied him for long. I guess the next maritime step would have been to set out across the Pacific ... probably ending up in California.

 

Ha ha. That's funny. You're perspective of my post gave me a good laugh. Yes, you're right. It's somewhat rediculous because supplies was always a burden and nothing went smoothly in uncharted lands. If he physically could have he would have tried, that is certain. But Clearly, I didn't take into account this was before mechanized infantry. Hmm, Now that I think of it, I don't think Alexander would have attempted Africa at all. The Romans had all the time in the world and they didn't. I am certain however that he could have conquered all the land of the later Roman Empire but the IF's are massive and the research involved for accurate probability is immense but my opinion is if he wasn't killed, murdered or died of disease, he could have conquered all of Europe.

[DecimusCaesar]

It was something he would have attempted if he had lived. Alexander was addicted to conquest and as Arrian said, he would have attempted the conquest of Europe as well as massive building projects in the lands he had already conquered, among them a gigantic Pyramid to honour his father Philip. He was planning on making it much larger than the Pyramid of Khufu.

[Andrew Dalby]

 

 

Well, that would have created a United Nations rather quicker than anyone expected. But don't stop there. Alexander's coastal exploration of Arabia would surely not have satisfied him for long. I guess the next maritime step would have been to set out across the Pacific ... probably ending up in California.

 

Ha ha. That's funny. You're perspective of my post gave me a good laugh. Yes, you're right. It's somewhat rediculous because supplies was always a burden and nothing went smoothly in uncharted lands. If he physically could have he would have tried, that is certain. But Clearly, I didn't take into account this was before mechanized infantry. Hmm, Now that I think of it, I don't think Alexander would have attempted Africa at all. The Romans had all the time in the world and they didn't. I am certain however that he could have conquered all the land of the later Roman Empire but the IF's are massive and the research involved for accurate probability is immense but my opinion is if he wasn't killed, murdered or died of disease, he could have conquered all of Europe.

 

Yes, Krackalackin, to be serious now, I agree with you that Europe might well have fallen to him (if he could have persuaded his troops to go on fighting). I mean, roughly, the future Roman Empire. Viewing Alexander as potential conqueror of sub-Saharan Africa on the one side, and northern Europe on the other, makes me doubtful for exactly the same reasons you have now stated: no supplies, no infrastructure, all sorts of other logistical problems. And, at the end of the day, relatively little to be gained (which is surely one reason why the Romans eventually drew the line on northern Europe).

[Uros]

Like every conquerer doesn't want to conquer the world. Actually, Alexader planned on conquering the Arabian Peninsula, not Italia or Carthago.

 

And the very rich and powerfull etruscan league?

and the richest Samnites nations in south italy?(of them Alexander may recruit good soldier)

I think Italy was mnot suitable for distances by the centres of Empire(Babylon and Persia) but was surely a good point

[Julius Ratus]

Even if Alexander did counquer Rome (which he probobly could have), he would eventually die (all men do). None of his successors were able to hold the empire together, so I think that the Romans would have been back under their own rule in less than a generation. I think that Rome would have developed differently as a result, but how they would have is hard to say.

[Krackalackin]

The amazing thing about Alexander is how quickly he conquered. He forged the largest Empire ever in ten years. It takes most countries centuries to create an empire. This is also why I feel it collapsed. It didn't really collapse at first. The real problem was the simple fact they didn't have a successor to Alexander to rule the whole Empire. Nobody knew enough about the entire Empire to run it except Alexander, Hephaiston, Parmernio and maybe some others. But you must also be strong. Rome had the innumerous outlooks of building its empire slowly through many great difficulties and many governments. It had a much stronger nucleus woven than the Macedonian Empire.