Surviving Macedonian Empire's Impact on Rome?

Who's to say that the Gauls wouldn't content themselves with serving as mercenaries for Alexander and his successor(s?)? Why pick a fight against the world's most powerful empire when you could work as a sellsword and after some time in service, be rich enough to buy influence amongst their tribe or even resettle in the Empire?

Indeed. And it might go further than that.

From what I can gather, Macedon was initially a coalition of "Barbarian" tribes who got united under a single king. So it might not be too hard for Galllic tribes to fit into such an arrangement. I could imagine some earlier version of Vercingetorix or Caractacus becoming (after Macedonian military training) a Companion of Alexander far more easily than I could see them as Roman Senators. The cultural gap is less.

I could imagine Alexander doing with the Gauls what he did with the Persians, recruiting contingents of youths and boys for his army, and in due course sending them home as Greek-speakers who had seen the world, and would see their (and their tribe's) future as a part of that world.

That might also be a way of dealing with Rome. Treat her a a loyal ally in return for regular contingents of Roman auxiliaries for the army, who on their return some years later might well find the City a bit parochial after the world they had come to know. Perhaps a sort of hellenisation by stealth.
 

Pellaeon

Banned
Indeed. And it might go further than that.

From what I can gather, Macedon was initially a coalition of "Barbarian" tribes who got united under a single king. So it might not be too hard for Galllic tribes to fit into such an arrangement. I could imagine some earlier version of Vercingetorix or Caractacus becoming (after Macedonian military training) a Companion of Alexander far more easily than I could see them as Roman Senators. The cultural gap is less.

I could imagine Alexander doing with the Gauls what he did with the Persians, recruiting contingents of youths and boys for his army, and in due course sending them home as Greek-speakers who had seen the world, and would see their (and their tribe's) future as a part of that world.

That might also be a way of dealing with Rome. Treat her a a loyal ally in return for regular contingents of Roman auxiliaries for the army, who on their return some years later might well find the City a bit parochial after the world they had come to know. Perhaps a sort of hellenisation by stealth.
In other words a slow moving hellenization but one with far more long lasting effects.
 
Why does everyone assume that Alexander would be able to concentrate his energies to the West? His army was exhausted and straight up revolted in India, and if he ditches his Macedonian core he loses his elite soldiers. Not to mention that the Indians might want to take a piece out of Alexander's empire. Just two years after Alexander's death OTL, a new Indian empire formed that wouldn't mind owning, and invaded, the Indus River Valley. Alexander would probably be forced to expend most of his militaristic energies fighting off Indian attempts to conquer his territories. And if they strike while Alexander's busy with Carthage, Arabia, or European conquests? They'd likely have years to consolidate before a significant force could oppose them.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Why does everyone assume that Alexander would be able to concentrate his energies to the West? His army was exhausted and straight up revolted in India, and if he ditches his Macedonian core he loses his elite soldiers. Not to mention that the Indians might want to take a piece out of Alexander's empire. Just two years after Alexander's death OTL, a new Indian empire formed that wouldn't mind owning, and invaded, the Indus River Valley. Alexander would probably be forced to expend most of his militaristic energies fighting off Indian attempts to conquer his territories. And if they strike while Alexander's busy with Carthage, Arabia, or European conquests? They'd likely have years to consolidate before a significant force could oppose them.

1. Alexander was actually training a considerable native army in the Macedonian style, which was part of the reason his troops were disgruntled: not because they were tired, but because they felt they were being replaced. Alexander had to explain that he wasn't sending them back home and replacing them. The feast at Opis was symbolic for reconciliation, and things were in order after that. Most of his veterans wanted to stay with him.

2. The reason they didn't want to go into India was because it was way too far away from their home, and they considered India as extending too far beyond the (achieved) goal of conquering all of Persia. Not wanting to conquer distant India, however, does not equate to rejecting all other future campaigns as well.

3. Those who did want to go home were given the chance to, led by Krateiros. In return, Antipatros would come to Alexander from Macedon, bringing additional new, younger troops with him.

4. The Maurya Empire managed to expand into the remnants of Alexander's empire because he was dead, and his successors were fighting each other. As long as alexander lives, the chances that Chandragupta Maurya is going to tempt fate by invading are quite slim, actually. (Chandragupta was very capable, and would not make reckless mistakes. In fact, he was known for avoiding them.)

5. If Alexander is suddenly attacked in the east, he'll abandon all Western plans and march east on the double. He can try in the West again later on, after all. Should Alexander be forced to march East like that, it will be a matter of honour for Macedon and of territorial integrity for Persia. That is to say: he won't be short on troops. He will march over there with an army that would strike fear into the heart of any and every foe.
 
Last edited:
5. If Alexander is suddenly attacked in the east, he'll abandon all Western plans and march east on the double. He can try in the West again later on, after all. Should Alexander be forced to march East like that, it will be a matter of honour for Macedon and of territorial integrity for Persia. That is to say: he won't be short on troops. He will march over there with an army that would strike fear into the heart of any and every foe.


EDIT : Iskandar is my head canon for Alexander the Great. He is single handedly the best character in anything. Watch Fate Zero

DOUBLE EDIT : Even better version

 
Last edited:
1. Alexander was actually training a considerable native army in the Macedonian style, which was part of the reason his troops were disgruntled: not because they were tired, but because they felt they were being replaced. Alexander had to explain that he wasn't sending them back home and replacing them. The feast at Opis was symbolic for reconciliation, and things were in order after that. Most of his veterans wanted to stay with him.

That still means he loses veterans of numerous campaigns in a time when the quality of individual soldiers was very important. Any fresh replacements won't be battle hardened or supremely assured of their skill by years of fighting.

2. The reason they didn't want to go into India was because it was way too far away from their home, and they considered India as extending too far beyond the (achieved) goal of conquering all of Persia. Not wanting to conquer distant India, however, does not equate to rejecting all other future campaigns as well.

I never said it did, I just pointed out how Alexander would likely have to exert quite a bit of effort to maintain his empire in India. He may be great, but he can't be everywhere at once.

3. Those who did want to go home were given the chance to, led by Krateiros. In return, Antipatros would come to Alexander from Macedon, bringing additional new, younger troops with him.

Once again, those troops will be of inferior quality to those lost. Maybe numbers will make up for that, but the veterans will sorely be missed.

4. The Maurya Empire managed to expand into the remnants of Alexander's empire because he was dead, and his successors were fighting each other. As long as alexander lives, the chances that Chandragupta Maurya is going to tempt fate by invading are quite slim, actually. (Chandragupta was very capable, and would not make reckless mistakes. In fact, he was known for avoiding them.)

That still leaves a strong empire on the extreme fringes of the empire. Just that fact alone means Alexander will have to sink significant resources on the Indian frontier, as well as him needing to be able to respond relatively quickly to crises.

5. If Alexander is suddenly attacked in the east, he'll abandon all Western plans and march east on the double. He can try in the West again later on, after all. Should Alexander be forced to march East like that, it will be a matter of honour for Macedon and of territorial integrity for Persia. That is to say: he won't be short on troops. He will march over there with an army that would strike fear into the heart of any and every foe.

Every time Alexander retreats from the West, that's another campaign that the states there can adapt to, and as the Second Punic War shows, as long as you don't lose you will eventually learn how to counter your opponent. Alexander may be a great general, but so was Hannibal and he was still defeated by Rome even after ravaging their heartland for years. Imagine how a state that can freely make use of their resources between campaigns will be able to prepare, not to mention get more time that Alexander might die in.
As for marching on India with a host of a million men, how is he going to supply them on the way there? His first retreat from India resulted in a large amounts of deaths due to marching through a desert and if he takes a longer route, he gives Chandragupta more time to consolidate. Not to mention that most troops likely raised for fighting in this hypothetical host will probably be levies and not the higher quality forces Alexander used to create his empire. Or that Alexander likely wouldn't know what to do with such a large army since his conquests were mainly done with his smaller, more elite Macedonian core. There's also the historical precedent of both Persian invasions of Greece for supposedly invincible armies being defeated by an inferior foe, and Chandragupta will definitely be closer to numerical parity with Alexander than the Greeks.
 
That still means he loses veterans of numerous campaigns in a time when the quality of individual soldiers was very important. Any fresh replacements won't be battle hardened or supremely assured of their skill by years of fighting.

We are talking about the Phalanx and Mixed Arms right? The former defined by the unity and discipline of the group, rather than the individual? One veteran, each able to claim their own reputation and status, can train a hundred men and instill them with confidence. It isn't like they're about to all disappear. The new armies will be plenty capable, especially since they're led by the same men who created those veterans. I see little reason why Alexander should be worried about their ability. It isn't like fresh Macedonian troops post-Philip let Alexander down.

I never said it did, I just pointed out how Alexander would likely have to exert quite a bit of effort to maintain his empire in India. He may be great, but he can't be everywhere at once.

Once again, those troops will be of inferior quality to those lost. Maybe numbers will make up for that, but the veterans will sorely be missed.

That still leaves a strong empire on the extreme fringes of the empire. Just that fact alone means Alexander will have to sink significant resources on the Indian frontier, as well as him needing to be able to respond relatively quickly to crises.

Every time Alexander retreats from the West, that's another campaign that the states there can adapt to, and as the Second Punic War shows, as long as you don't lose you will eventually learn how to counter your opponent. Alexander may be a great general, but so was Hannibal and he was still defeated by Rome even after ravaging their heartland for years. Imagine how a state that can freely make use of their resources between campaigns will be able to prepare, not to mention get more time that Alexander might die in.
As for marching on India with a host of a million men, how is he going to supply them on the way there? His first retreat from India resulted in a large amounts of deaths due to marching through a desert and if he takes a longer route, he gives Chandragupta more time to consolidate. Not to mention that most troops likely raised for fighting in this hypothetical host will probably be levies and not the higher quality forces Alexander used to create his empire. Or that Alexander likely wouldn't know what to do with such a large army since his conquests were mainly done with his smaller, more elite Macedonian core. There's also the historical precedent of both Persian invasions of Greece for supposedly invincible armies being defeated by an inferior foe, and Chandragupta will definitely be closer to numerical parity with Alexander than the Greeks.

It entirely depends on whether Chandragupta considers it worth it. Alexander, like himself doesn't really have a major threat to him besides the other at this point. Is it better to unite India outside of the Indus and territories Alexander controls, or risk the invasion Skall mentions. This is Alexander the Great. He doesn't DO small wars. He does All Or Nothing. He has that reputation, he just destroyed Persia with Greece, and can levy that entire might against India. Against a successor? Sure. But to risk unending war (Which is what I'd expect of Alexander in all honesty) - A western war is a drain, but a small campaign in comparison. There is nobody there that is remotely a challenge on the scale of Persia - and so accomplished (and loyal) Generals, with new ones in tow, are more than enough to do the job. There is nothing Alexander the Great would enjoy more than answering Chandragupta directly if he invaded India. It might take some thought to adapt his strategies to war elephants more effectively - especially working with Porus as a Satrap.

(Also, really, Gedroisa? That isn't an argument against Alexanders logistical potential, since the two main hypothesis' are Punishments, or "Because Cyrus Failed".)

We have to remember that it is still debated today as to what effect Alexander had in terms of impacting the demographics of Macedonia, as he called for so many men. That doesn't suggest to me that it was always top-of-the-line recruits, but every man that wasn't otherwise needed. This was so bad that Alexander when he retired some men literally ordered them to have children, and lots of them!

As such, it suggests that Iranian troops (not from Persis proper mind), were probably already part of Alexanders army in the Indus Campaigns.

http://www.academia.edu/1492980/First_Iranian_Units_in_the_Army_of_Alexander_the_Great

Seems an interesting read. It even concludes that the force that invaded India was mostly Iranian. Which suggests that it is entirely possible to increase the size of his army without it involving 'levies'. Chances are that like Alexander and Philip, the armies would be trained and made more professional as reinforcements to support the initial campaign.

Personally, I don't see Alexander campaigning against Chandragupta, or vice versa. I also don't see Chandragupta doing so before Alexander has a chance to invade Arabia. With Arabia secure, Alexander can set up major logistics on the coast, and as long as he can secure coastal ports - can supply his army that way.

This isn't a case of immovable object vs unstoppable force. It is more a case of "who is more nuts". Alexander is a talented campaigner, but certainly the more mental. You don't declare war on unrelenting crazy who just conquered an Empire in his youth (the latter applying to both sides).

I'm not sure either Empire could realistically survive that war.
 
In addition to what was said above, the whole rationale Phillip had for adopting the phalanx in the first place was it was cheap and relatively effective without much training. A phalangite does not require much in the way of armor and does not require much skill to be effective-experience only really plays a role in phalanx vs phalanx battles, which Alexander doesn't have to worry about. More importantly the parts of Alexander's army that do require skill, quality, etc. to be effective, he can find in abundance throughout his empire. Crack cavalry-the hammer of the Alexandrian army-is readily available to Alexander, as are any number of crack light and skirmisher infantry. Syrian and Persian archers, Baktrian, Sogdian, Median, and Cappadocian cavalry (on top of his already existed Thessalian and Macedonian cavalry) etc. are all of the highest quality.
 
Top