GBW said:
Actually the Persians had elephants at Arbela. So it was not the first time the Macedonians had seen them. But it was the first time the elephants caused large numbers of casualties...
326 BCE Battle of Hydaspes:Alexander the Great continues East
- Thread starter Armilus
- Start date
Actually the Persians had elephants at Arbela. So it was not the first time the Macedonians had seen them. But it was the first time the elephants caused large numbers of casualties...
Well, it only makes logical sense; the Silk Road includes northern India, so there would have to be SOME merchants who can read Qu Chinese (since the language wasn't simplified by the First Emperor at this time) if only to understand what it is they have just received.
Knight Of Armenia said:
The Silk Road did not exist at this time...not for another 200 years after Alex.
What what what?! Are you trying to say there was no trade between China, India, and Persia?! That is the rudimentary form of the "Silk Road" (which was more of a trade route rather than an actual road).
Leo Caesius
Banned
I agree with Rafi - even before recorded history, we have evidence of a Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex in the region which left seals all over the Near East and the Indus Valley. Also, IIRC at the time of Alexander, the Phoenicians had already made it to China and were apparently selling those glass eye beads that are so common in the Mediterranean today (the blue ones). The Chinese being the Chinese, it was not long before a local "knock-off" industry of beads arose. The two types appear in China but they are obviously of different manufacture (one contains lead, which is, I believe, typical of glass manufactured in the Mediterranean but not in China, or vice versa), which lead Chinese scholars to isolate them. The Chinese have been aware of this for a while but it was not until a Chinese grad student alerted Glenn Markoe (who is a scholar of the Phoenicians) to these developments in Chinese archaeology that the West became aware of them. He published an article in 2001, I believe.
The Phoenicians got all the way to China? I didn't know that.
I tend to think that India will be more difficult for Alexander's army to conquer than Persia, for several reasons.
First of all, the Persian Empire was one huge political unit. Once you decisively defeated the large main armies and killed, captured, or completely discredited the ruler of such an empire, resistance would tend to weaken or even vanish in other areas, allowing you . India, on the other hand, was split into many warring kingdoms. Killing or capturing or humiliating the ruler of one kingdom is only going to give you control of that particular kingdom, it won't help with the other 20 or 30 that you have to deal with.
Second, Darius IIIs ability as a battlefield leader and tactician left much to be desired, to put it mildly. Had the Persians been led by someone of the caliber of Cyrus or Darius I, Alexander's task would probably have been much more difficult (not that it wasn't really difficult already). In India, some of the local rulers may have been poor or mediocre battlefield commanders, but others would have been tougher opponents. In OTL, the Indian ruler that the Macedonians called "Porus" (whatever his actual name was) seems to have been a much better leader than the Darius, and there might have been quite a few other leaders of equal or greater ability that Alexander would have had to fight.
Third, weren't there some diseases in India that Alexander and his men wouldn't have encountered, or wouldn't have encountered in as dangerous a form, before?
On the other hand, if anyone could take on this challenge, it would probably be Alexander and his army.
I tend to think that India will be more difficult for Alexander's army to conquer than Persia, for several reasons.
First of all, the Persian Empire was one huge political unit. Once you decisively defeated the large main armies and killed, captured, or completely discredited the ruler of such an empire, resistance would tend to weaken or even vanish in other areas, allowing you . India, on the other hand, was split into many warring kingdoms. Killing or capturing or humiliating the ruler of one kingdom is only going to give you control of that particular kingdom, it won't help with the other 20 or 30 that you have to deal with.
Second, Darius IIIs ability as a battlefield leader and tactician left much to be desired, to put it mildly. Had the Persians been led by someone of the caliber of Cyrus or Darius I, Alexander's task would probably have been much more difficult (not that it wasn't really difficult already). In India, some of the local rulers may have been poor or mediocre battlefield commanders, but others would have been tougher opponents. In OTL, the Indian ruler that the Macedonians called "Porus" (whatever his actual name was) seems to have been a much better leader than the Darius, and there might have been quite a few other leaders of equal or greater ability that Alexander would have had to fight.
Third, weren't there some diseases in India that Alexander and his men wouldn't have encountered, or wouldn't have encountered in as dangerous a form, before?
On the other hand, if anyone could take on this challenge, it would probably be Alexander and his army.
Leo Caesius said:
Not necessarily Indians who could read Chinese - though I wouldn't exclude the possibility - but very likely Tibetans (and possibly Chinese) who read Sanskrit. Buddhism is not yet big there IIRC, but there would very likely have been some awareness, at least.
Leo Caesius
Banned
Either the Phoenicians or their trading partners along the Silk Road. I'd like to think that it was the Phoenicians myself, but at any rate these discoveries prove that trade between the East and the West was occuring, either directly or through intermediaries. As they say, the Sogdians were EVERYWHERE.Paul Spring said:
I have it in the back of my head that Claudius Ptolemy's (2nd century) maps of the world, copies of which were among those carried by Columbus, were based on Phoenician originals, but that may just be wishful thinking on my part. These maps feature India, SE Asia, and part of China.
Well it is actually debatable if the son (Philotas) was actually guilty. While the assasination of Parmenio/n (seen it spelt both ways) is a horrible act is is possible to understand why it happened (uhm, Ive just executed the son of the man in control of my logistics network; a decent sized army and a heap of gold... what should I do?)
The differance between Alexander III of Macedons' army and those of his sucessors? Alexander went for the use of combined cavalry-infantry tactics to out manouver and weaken his opponenets line while the diodochi went for elephants, catapaults and extreamly long Sarissa (the macedonian pike) to try to smash directly throught the enemy's line.
Cockroach said:
We are talking about within ten years after Alex's death. Those changes had not yet had time to creep in.