326 BCE Battle of Hydaspes:Alexander the Great continues East

Armilus

Banned
After Hydaspes in India, Alexander's travel-sickened troops refused to go further east. WI they had got a second wind & marched on? How much further east could Alexander have gone? Could he have continued winning against Bengalis, Khmer, Vietnamese, Koreans, Siberians, Thais, Burmese etc
 
Armilus said:
After Hydaspes in India, Alexander's travel-sickened troops refused to go further east. WI they had got a second wind & marched on? How much further east could Alexander have gone? Could he have continued winning against Bengalis, Khmer, Vietnamese, Koreans, Siberians, Thais, Burmese etc

I think he could have conquered India, but it would have been extremely costly. The Indians could field HUGE armies (For example, Chandragupta Maurya, just a few years later, had 30,000 CAVALRY in his army...about as many cavalry as Alexander had TROOPS OF ALL KINDS in his army. Chandragupta's infantry force reportedly numbered 600,000, supported by 9000 elephants. Even if these figures are wildly exaggerated, Alex is still going to be outnumbered by overwhelming margins). And even if Macedonian discipline beats the Indians every time they met in battle, Alexander is going to lose a LOT of men...probably nearly his entire force...before its over.

If by chance he still has an army after subduing India, Indochina presents it's own challenges. As far as the Khmer, Vietnamese, Thais and Burmese...there were no organized states in that region at that time, just a bunch of disunited tribes. There is not much question that he could have conquered them. Holding them might be another matter, of course, if they resorted to guerilla resistance. The jungle-choked terrain would have made holding this region down a virtually impossible task.

Now, if instead of heading toward Indochina, he goes after China itself, then he appears in the middle of the Warring States Period. China's states are armed to the teeth, with huge armies (even more so than India). And Chinese armies were quite skilled...the writings of Sun Tzu on the art of war are still studied today. Alex's only hope is that he could play the Warring States off against one another (call it "doing a Cortez") and use Chinese manpower to conquer China.

So I guess the short answer is...he probably is not going to get much beyond India, if indeed he can conquer India. It's probably just as well that he turned back when he did.
 
This raises another question.

If the Macedonians don't turn back for how long could Alexander live?

He died a young man of 32 even given the time he could possibly lived until his mid 50's.

I saw a documentory a few months back that indicated that Alexanders illness that caused his death was an accident of him being in the wrong place at the wrong time and that the bird dropping that caused the illness would not be in India.

In this instance we have a successfull military commander / King with good political skills and a ruthlessness to o anything to maintain the empire.

What would the world be like if Alexander reigned for another 20 years?

He would most likely have produced an heir to the empire and maybe started a dynasty that could last as long as the Macedonians maintained control?

Thoughts comments? :cool:
 
Uhm... Robert? Are you forgetting that little thing called the Persian Empire, which Alexander just smashed apart like matchsticks? It also fielded massive armies of hundreds of thousands of men. And the Immortals, the 10,000 elite cavalry (not all the cavalry, just the elite) were (and are) widely regarded as the most powerful cavalry of the day, before Alexander's Companion Cavalry came along.

You are seriously underestimating the brilliance of Alexander the Great here. I've noticed a really bad tendency on this board to go the opposite of most people; for example, whereas most people who have heard of Alexander say "he was the greatest general ever" (or some such), quite a few of the people here will go the complete opposite route, arguing that he wasn't that great a general (I've seen this done for Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, Erwin Rommel, etc.). While it's true that people should be objective and that NO ONE is invulnerable, you really can't expect something like "he won every battle he ever fought, but had he continued he would have lost his NEXT ONE VERY BADLY" to be taken seriously. Alexander marched across the vastest empire in the world, fighting armies many times larger than his a good 3 times, and annihilating each one. Give the guy a LITTLE credit, at least!

My view of it is that Alexander earnestly believed he had reached very close to the end of the world; had he crossed the mountains and realized that another subcontinent (as well as the might of China, divided as she was) lay ahead, he would have realized the world is much larger than he had previously believed. Thus, he returns with his weary troops to rest and rebuild; having missed whatever specific virus it was that would finally fell him, Alexander sets off some 6 years later with an army nearly three times as large as the one he used to conquer the Persian Empire, trained in the tactics and formations that made him the ruler of the largest nation in the history of mankind. In the meantime, he fathers a son, Phillip, and has gained the acceptance of the Persian people as the new Shahanshah. His troops quickly mop up the Indian subcontinent, and he adds the title of Rajah to his already impressive resume. He works hard to ingratiate himself to the Indians, and their strict caste system allows for an absolute ruler, as he does not try to enforce his own religious beliefs onto the people.

Alexander's entry into China would be called the Wrath of the Southern Devils, and for centuries afterwards, the Chinese would speak of long-speared demons from the West. The elite phalanx formation of Alexander is a tactic that the Chinese have not yet encountered, and China, weary from years of internal warfare, is hard pressed to fight the might of the world's largest empire led by the world's greatest tactician. A courtier presents Alexander with copies of China's collected works; among them is a tome entitled "The Art of War." Intrigued, Alexander orders a Persian translation, as no one can yet speak both Greek and Chinese, and is astounded by the insights of this Chinese man named Sun Tzu. Already a fearsome opponent, Alexander further hones his skill, and always carried a copy of "the Art of War" with him onto the battlefield.

Alexander finally stops after conquering the kingdom of Qu; his empire is the vastest in the world, but he is now 50, having spent almost all of his adult life on the battlefield. Finally feeling age for the first time, Alexander rides back to Babylon; during the campaigns (which, altogether, have lasted some 11 years), his young son has grown into a strong youth, having ridden out during Alexander's campaign to join him after the conquest of India. The boy is now 16 and strapping, and Alexander announces him to be his heir and the next Ruler of the World.

Alexander dies peacefully in his sleep at the age of 56; from across the known world, humanity mourns the loss of its ruler. When Phillip takes the throne as Phillip III, he quickly proves to be as smart a ruler as his father, rooting out those among the generals whose loyalty to the Great King has not passed to his son and sending them back to Macedonia without their armies. All organized factions in the world have crumbled before the might of Alexander; his son, now, sits upon the highest throne in the world, ruling mankind.
 
Knight of Armenia, I have noticed the same thing. People here seems extremly critical to everyone and skeptical to most things. Had Alexander never arosed and someone in ATL wrote a TL about OTL Alexander on the ATL AlternateHistory.com, then I'm sure that guy would be laughed to death.
 

Armilus

Banned
Compared to the staggering losses of his opponents, Alexander's losses used to be minimal eg

Granicus 115 vs 30,000
Issus 450 vs 50,000
Arbela 300 vs 90,000
Hydaspes 300 vs 23,000
 
Last edited:
Knight Of Armenia said:
Uhm... Robert? Are you forgetting that little thing called the Persian Empire, which Alexander just smashed apart like matchsticks? It also fielded massive armies of hundreds of thousands of men....You are seriously underestimating the brilliance of Alexander the Great here. I've noticed a really bad tendency on this board to go the opposite of most people; for example, whereas most people who have heard of Alexander say "he was the greatest general ever" (or some such), quite a few of the people here will go the complete opposite route, arguing that he wasn't that great a general (I've seen this done for Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, Erwin Rommel, etc.). While it's true that people should be objective and that NO ONE is invulnerable, you really can't expect something like "he won every battle he ever fought, but had he continued he would have lost his NEXT ONE VERY BADLY" to be taken seriously.

No, I am not forgetting his accomplishments in conquering the Persian Empire, nor am I denying the greatness of Alexander's brilliance. India was a different case, for several reasons...

1) Modern scholars discount the estimates of strength of the Persian forces faced by Alexander which are given by classical authors, which were nowhere near as large as the forces India was capable of fielding.

2) Alexander's victories against the Persians were in some measure due to the cowardice of King Darius III of Persia. At Issus and at Arbela, Alexander's tactic was to charge straight at Darius so as to panic said monarch and cause him to flee the field. Once the Persian King fled, his army panicked and fled as well. Alex could not have counted on that factor working for him in India.

3) The casualties suffered by the Macedonian army at the Battle of the Hydaspes were huge, much larger than they ever suffered in any battle against the Persians. And Porus had a relatively small army by Indian standards (6000 cavalry, 30,000 infantry, 200 elephants...not much larger than Alex's army).

4) Your argument that Alex would leave and return with a larger army is possible. However, in that case most of the troops he would then field would be unreliable Persians...not Macedonians. This would make his task even harder.
 

Armilus

Banned
According to Macksey, at Hydaspes Alexander had 11,000 to Porus' 34,000, and lost only 300 to Porus' 23,000.
 

Grey Wolf

Donor
Syphon said:
He would most likely have produced an heir to the empire and maybe started a dynasty that could last as long as the Macedonians maintained control?

Didn't he have an heir ? I'll look into it but my mind is telling me he did and there was something important about this

Grey Wolf
 

Grey Wolf

Donor
Grey Wolf said:
Didn't he have an heir ? I'll look into it but my mind is telling me he did and there was something important about this

Grey Wolf

He married Roxane who bore him a son and Stateira, elder daughter of Darius III simply because of political expedience and need to secure an heir to the throne. Earlier he had a relationship with Barsine, a widow of his chief enemy Memnon, who bore him another son, Heracles.
http://sangha.net/messengers/alexander/questions.htm



Alexander married several princesses of former Persian territories: Roxana of Bactria ; Statira, daughter of Darius III; and Parysatis, daughter of Ochus. However his greatest emotional attachment is generally considered to have been to his companion, cavalry commander (chiliarchos) and possibly lover, Hephaestion . He also took as lover one of Darius' minions, the eunuch Bagoas, as Plutarch tells us. Roxana eventually gave birth to the boy Alexander IV, "Aegus", putatively his son.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great
Alexander left a huge empire of forced Persio-Greek culture to his successors, (the Diadochi or Diadochoi), who jostled for supremacy over portions of this realm. When the dust settled, virtually all of his officers had disposed of their Persian wives, and all but two of his top officers, his mother, his wife Roxana (Roshanak in Persian, his son Alexander IV of Macedon ( 323 - 309 BC ), his illegitimate son Heracles ( 327 - 309 BC ), his sister Cleopatra ,his half-sister Euridice ,and his half-brother Philip III of Macedon, were dead, only one of whom (Antipater) died of natural causes.
Soon after Alexander's death, his soldiers elected his infant son, Alexander, and half-brother, Phillip, to be the successor kings. But young Alexander was just a baby and Phillip suffered from a mental infirmity.Under the circumstances the great commanders of Alexander's army, the diadochi, elected one of their own, Perdiccas, to be regent and chiliarchos. A soldiers assembly formally accepted him and thus Perdiccas was set to rule the empire until Alexander IV reached maturity. However, in the very next year, 322, Perdiccas fell into a conflict with Ptolemy, one of the diadochoi and currently satrap of Egypt. The regent took his army to Egypt in order to punish Ptolemy, but during the event he was killed.


So, there was an heir but he was too young, and the generals fought amongst themselves for the right to be regent. So, it comes down to if Alexander had lived longer then his heir (who already existed) would have been older and if old enough to rule may well have prevented the rivalries and disintegration

Grey Wolf
 
Armilus said:
According to Macksey, at Hydaspes Alexander had 11,000 to Porus' 34,000, and lost only 300 to Porus' 23,000.

There is no historical basis for the casualty figures cited by Macksey, other than the exaggerated reports of classical authors, which cannot be trusted. It is sufficient to say that the losses were sufficiently high that Alexander's men revolted rather than go further, in large part because of shock at the losses sustained in the battle. A loss of 300 out of 11,000 would not seem high enough to have justified such a response from seasoned veterans like Alex's men.

But assuming for the sake of argument that the figures are true...the Macedonians at Arbela also suffered 300 casualties, according to the figures you cite from Macksey. Yet at Arbela, Alex had about 40,000 men on the field. So proportionately, Alex lost four times as many at the Hydaspes than he did at Arbela (again, assuming the unlikely event that Macksey's figures are correct).
 
I don't think they revolted due to losses, so much as due to the fact that they had been away from home for more than a decade, and had already accomplished what they had set out to do (defeat Persia). They just wanted to go home.

Also, that is the reason why I had Alexander spending some six years training his new army; the Persians aren't "weaker" than Macedonians on an individual basis. The reason that they lost wasn't so much Darius' cowardice (though he was a coward) but that, quite simply, the Persian army had nothing beyond numbers. Except for a few extremely well trained units (such as the Immortals), the Persian army was made up of hundreds of thousands of peasants who had just been given a sharp stick and sent into battle. No armor, no real weaponry, no training; that is why they broke. Alexander used professional troops; if he turns his Persian subjects into a professional army, then India wouldn't be quite so daunting.
 
Knight Of Armenia said:
I don't think they revolted due to losses, so much as due to the fact that they had been away from home for more than a decade, and had already accomplished what they had set out to do (defeat Persia). They just wanted to go home.

Plutarch's version of the event is as follows...

"This [Battle of the Hydaspes] was a costly victory, however. Many Macedonians died, and so did Alexander's old war horse, Bucephalus. This grieved Alexander so much that it seemed as though he had lost an old friend. On that spot he ordered a city to be built, named Bucephalia.

Such a difficult victory over only 22,000 Indians took the edge off the courage of the Macedonians. They had no enthusiasm for Alexander's proposed crossing of the Ganges, a river said to be four miles wide and six hundred feet deep, to encounter an army on the other side consisting of 200,000 infantry, 80,000 cavalry, 8,000 chariots, and 6,000 war elephants."

So, if this account is to be believed, it was definitely a shock reaction to the losses suffered at the Hydaspes, coupled with fear of the numbers of similar troops they would have to face later.


Knight Of Armenia said:
Also, that is the reason why I had Alexander spending some six years training his new army; the Persians aren't "weaker" than Macedonians on an individual basis. The reason that they lost wasn't so much Darius' cowardice (though he was a coward) but that, quite simply, the Persian army had nothing beyond numbers. Except for a few extremely well trained units (such as the Immortals), the Persian army was made up of hundreds of thousands of peasants who had just been given a sharp stick and sent into battle. No armor, no real weaponry, no training; that is why they broke. Alexander used professional troops; if he turns his Persian subjects into a professional army, then India wouldn't be quite so daunting.

Two replies...

1) Alex might have raised an army of Persians and trained and equipped them in the Macedonian style...but these troops are going to be politically unreliable, and just as likely to turn on Alex as to support him. One reason why Alex's army performed so well is that they literally loved their leader and went out of their way to perform for him. It is very unlikely an army composed primarily of Persian conscripts would perform as well.

2) Given the fact that Chandragupta (who was alive at this time and actually met Alex shortly after the Battle of the Hydaspes) was able to defeat the professional, Macedonian-style armies of Alexander's successors in the years immediately after Alex's death, it is pretty obvious that the difference in quality between the Indian armies of the time and the Macedonian army was not nearly as great as that between the Macedonian and Persian armies...if indeed there was a difference.
 
Last edited:
To get to China, Alexander would have to cross either a huge lot of waterless foodless desert, or a fearsome "geotectonic traffic accident" of high steep mountains and deep gorges choked with infested infected tropical jungle with the makings of a dozen Teutobergerwalds on the way.
 
The distance they traveled was a part of the reason, but not all of it. In 330 BC, Alexander discovered a conspiracy against him that implicated the son of his general Parmenion. The son was guilty, but Parmenion was innocent. Nevertheless, Alexander executed Parmenion along with his son and that soured Alexander's army against him. He'd been doing things that started to make his men doubt him and that started the conspiracy in the first place, like wearing Persian dress and trying to get his generals to prostrate themselves before him (didn't quite work out), but when he executed the obviously innocent Parmenion the men never quite had the full trust and admiration for Alexander afterward. After the Hydaspes, Alexander's men wouldn't go on anymore. They had fought huge Persian armies, fought viciously against guerrillas in Central Asia and marched clear across the known world for him without once grumbling. If Alexander had maybe heard Parmenion out and spared him, he'd not only still have one of his better generals, but his army would have continued across the Indus. Wasn't one of the reasons the Hydaspes was different was because the Macedonians fought elephants for the first time? There was a bit of a shock factor there, but I'm sure Alexander and his army would have adapted.

Also, when Alexander went through Persia (Persis) the first time heading east, I believe he began having 20,000 Persian boys trained in the Macedonian style of war. They would have made pretty good reinforcements.

Besides that, wasn't he planning on taking over the Persian Gulf region (Dilmun) and Carthage before he might turn back east against India and China?
 
Abpout the heir

The macedonian king was not automatically the son of the previous king. The king needed to be elected. As the macedonian traditions were severly endangered by Alaxander, the macedonians hesitted, in spite of alexanders outstanding perfomance, to inthronize any of his sons.
 
robertp6165 said:
Plutarch's version of the event is as follows...
Such a difficult victory over only 22,000 Indians took the edge off the courage of the Macedonians. They had no enthusiasm for Alexander's proposed crossing of the Ganges, a river said to be four miles wide and six hundred feet deep, to encounter an army on the other side consisting of 200,000 infantry, 80,000 cavalry, 8,000 chariots, and 6,000 war elephants."
The Ganges? Shouldn't that be the Indus?

Knight Of Armenia said:
A courtier presents Alexander with copies of China's collected works; among them is a tome entitled "The Art of War." Intrigued, Alexander orders a Persian translation, as no one can yet speak both Greek and Chinese, and is astounded by the insights of this Chinese man named Sun Tzu.
Were there people at this time who could speak both Persian and Chinese?
 
Well, there were Hindus who could speak Chinese, and I'm sure there were Hindus who could also speak Persian. I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility for learned Hindus in the north to speak both.
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
Knight Of Armenia said:
Well, there were Hindus who could speak Chinese, and I'm sure there were Hindus who could also speak Persian. I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility for learned Hindus in the north to speak both.
Actually, Persian was the official language of India from 1526 to 1857, under the Moghuls (who admittedly didn't have much control for the last hundred years of that period). However, the Persian spoken at the time of Alexander (from what we know of it) was surprisingly close to classical Sanskrit and there would probably have been a dialect continuum in the region between the two).

I didn't realize that there were Indians who could read Chinese at this period.
 
Top