How far west could Alexander have gone?

Ignore the Title. This is the new one: How Far East could Alexander have gone?

In 325BC Macedonia successfully conquers Northern India. Alexander is still very confident and his men are too. He decides to march further east. How far eastward could Alexander have possibly gone?

I think South East Asia

Alexander-Empire_323bc.jpg
 
Last edited:

Saphroneth

Banned
Anyway, to address the question...

The problem Alexander has is, basically, India's BIG. And densely populated, to boot.
It's about half the size of Europe and contains more people at this time than the entire European continent.
 
Macedonian Empire and the world at Alexander's death (Proudly AH.com made)

India would probably be a focus at some point (would it only to prevent Indus Kingdoms, that he technically submitted but remained largely autonomous, being disputed by Mauryas which were unifying the entiere peninsula).
But rather than advancing, it would be rather holding on the Indus region.

India was indeed basically unknown to Greeks, more populated, more strong and more...everything that Alexander already get. It's telling that Indian sources barely (if at all) record Alexander's presence IOTL : he didn't went to the places that mattered for Indian history.

Arabia would probably be his first focus : he already planned expeditions and made reckon the coast at the end of his reign.
Not a conquest of the whole peninsula, but at least (as he did in Central Asia) recovering the same domination that Persians did at their apogee. Eastern and Southern Arabia were, indeed, within traditional sphere of influence.

Don't expect a reduction of the hinterland and beduins being taken over militarily, but coastal control or overlordship would be probably to be expected. Maybe part of modern northern Somalia as well.

After that...Well, going West could still actually make more sense than India.

Arrian mentioned a North African campaign as well, against Carthage and/or Sicily.

However, at this point, his empire may reach some obstacles : rebellions (either from locals and generals), generalized weariness of the troops, and of course defeats (as someone posted long ago, if Napoléon died in 1810, he would be remembered as a largely undefeated general).

The empire would indeed risk outreaching itself at this point, and if Alexander gets Sicily (a prestigious and wealthy take, arguably) it would be good enough.

I'm not sure about an expedition in Italy. It's doable, certainly, but I think the Italian city-states would rather do the same thing than Cyrenaic region : acknowledging a far Macedonian presence, some tributes, and get away with that.

I'd rather think he would have tried to make Black Sea and Balkanic campaigns, if he was to be pragmatical (having Celts troubling the borders wouldn't be that much appreciated, and dealing with the rich Black Sea trade would be a nessecity sooner or later.
 
India wasn't all that populated!

The Persian Achaemenid Empire at it's apogee had 44% of the world's population. India's population is not the problem. It is the climate and disease vectors that will cause (and did cause) Alexander to abandon dreams of Indian conquest. Jared Diamond's various books cover this very scenario. More likely for Arabia, Sicily, and Carthage to be next. If successful in those maybe a Black Sea adventure, Nubia, and then that petty upstart with a big head nothing of a city called... Rome? Roma? Alexander's scribes writing his story might not even mention it ITTL, after the big conflict with Carthage.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The Persian Achaemenid Empire at it's apogee had 44% of the world's population. India's population is not the problem. It is the climate and disease vectors that will cause (and did cause) Alexander to abandon dreams of Indian conquest. Jared Diamond's various books cover this very scenario. More likely for Arabia, Sicily, and Carthage to be next. If successful in those maybe a Black Sea adventure, Nubia, and then that petty upstart with a big head nothing of a city called... Rome? Roma? Alexander's scribes writing his story might not even mention it ITTL, after the big conflict with Carthage.

The apogee is when it's the most powerful.

This is not then.

Alexander conquered a rather crumbling empire, that's one of the reasons he was able to do it at all.
 

jahenders

Banned
I'd agree that it would really make more sense for Alexander to consolidate some presence in India, claim he'd conquered everything of consequence, and then move back to the West (his home and the heart of his empire). He could consolidate power there, allow his troops to rest, raise new troops, and then head to Illyria, Southern Italy, Sicily, and maybe Pontus.
 
and then move back to the West (his home and the heart of his empire).
The heart of his empire wasn't in West anymore but in Mesopotamia and Iran. Demographically and economically, Macedonia and Hellada played a growingly minor role.
As said above, Alexander was really about claiming former Achemenids territories that either escaped imperial rule or only formally acknowledged it, as Indus region.

It's why Arabia, and not Italy, or Carthage, or Andromeda Galaxy was the expedition we know he planned to undergo when he died, and why everything in West would be more speculative.

It's as well why expeditions in West, while likely to happen, may end being more secondary campaigns once he'd deal with most pressing issue : the core of Alexander power was in Middle-East the moment he took over Persia.

As for population : while Achemenid Empire at his apogree represented indeed 2/5 of the world population, by the IVth century, India may have reached a similar ratio. Saying that swallowing up at worst 1/3 of the world population after having managed to takeover a large part already poses "no problem at all" other than climate is hard to believe (critically when it's not the cause of his abandon, but having overstrerched its possibilities, as the really harsh battle against Porus can hint).
 
I'd agree that it would really make more sense for Alexander to consolidate some presence in India, claim he'd conquered everything of consequence, and then move back to the West (his home and the heart of his empire). He could consolidate power there, allow his troops to rest, raise new troops, and then head to Illyria, Southern Italy, Sicily, and maybe Pontus.
The West wasn't the heart of his Empire. IF he had been smarter, it would have been.
 
Top