Why was Alexander able to conquer the Persian Empire?

Very little. As the diadochi wars showed, Alexander's soldiers had no problem being perpetually at war. They weren't tired of it. What they were tired of, was crossing the Himalayas and then facing monsoon conditions in India, while being outnumbered by even the smallest of kingdoms. They didn't even mind subjugating the areas in India they already were in, (see: Malian campaign) as long as they didn't have to go further east. Carthage is nothing compared to what they've already been through.


It was always my belief that Antipater was being brought back to act as viceroy in Asia while Alexander was away on campaign. This would signal Alexander had learned he can't just leave his empire without any supervision while away on a long campaign. It would also have the added effect of separating Antipater from Olympias, and thus relieving him the headache of having to deal with their personal loathing of each other.

OK thanks for clearing that up!

As to the Antipater thing, that does make much more sense than Olympias finally winning their struggle. Though it is odd that Antipater seemed to think he was being summoned to his death.

Another Question. Long term do you think that Alexander's western empire (for lack of a better word) would be viable, would those provinces break off or would they be more nominal vassals at best?
 
I was about to say something very similar. The Persians were outfitted with 6ft spears and wicker shields. The Macedonians were...considerably more well equipped. I don't think it had a whole lot to do with luck; it was the end of an era for the kind of people who thought wicker was a good thing to make a shield from.


Re: heavy infantry I'd not blame the Persians for failing before the Macedonian phalanx; so too did everyone else, including the Greek powers like Sparta and Thebes. Phillip had taken the revolutions of Epaminondas and accelerated them, and marched an almost entirely professional army to war.

Granted the non-Greek Persian infantry tended to falter differently than their Greek counterparts before Macedonian pikes...the former was beaten in power, the latter in manoeuvrability...but they all died in heavy numbers before the Silver Shields et al. The Persians had learned their weaknesses at Marathon, Platea etc. and compensated both by adaptation and absorption, trying to train their own Greek style infantry and meanwhile hiring plenty of the real thing. Unfortunately for them they didn't hire Makedonians trained under Philip.

We really tend to overlook how much Phillip was responsible for Alexander's conquests. His son added a kind of genius and obsession that his father lacked...and (possibly, sources aren't as clear as legend on this) a new emphasis on cavalry as the decisive arm. But Phillip was much more adaptable, politically astute and a better man for the business of building the machine his son would use so effectively.

Anyways, I ramble, but the point I'm making is that it's not so much that the Persians lacked, but rather that they were on the receiving end of a pretty significant game-changer. And Cynosephalae (vs. Roman legions) was an incredibly close run thing, which is overlooked in the rush to consequentialism, but a nudge here or there and the Macedonian phalanx might have dominated the western world for more than the couple centuries it did. And that was after they got away from really using the combined aspect of combined arms...ah, I'm drifting again.

So, trying to sum up my point, as with say Hastings, we tend to take a battle between 2 styles that was won/lost by a hair's breath and then post-apply systemic inevitability to the conflict. But in truth it all hangs or falls on a collection of seconds, and if it had gone the other way we might be talking about how inevitable it was for the legion or Norman cavalry to fall before the dominant military movement of their day. That said, this applies to Roman vs. Macedonian much more than vs. Persian, because that went one way on battle after battle after battle, with no Pyrrhus or w/e to offer contrasting argument. So not so much bad Persian as welcome to the new Macedonian game.
 
As to the Antipater thing, that does make much more sense than Olympias finally winning their struggle. Though it is odd that Antipater seemed to think he was being summoned to his death.
Alexander was executing a lot of people in his last days and may have also massacred the Cossaeans back to the stone age, attributed to a growing temper after the mutiny in India and then the death of Hephaestion.

I do think the idea of making Antipater viceroy of Asia makes a lot of sense for Alexander's motives though.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Very little. As the diadochi wars showed, Alexander's soldiers had no problem being perpetually at war. They weren't tired of it. What they were tired of, was crossing the Himalayas and then facing monsoon conditions in India, while being outnumbered by even the smallest of kingdoms. They didn't even mind subjugating the areas in India they already were in, (see: Malian campaign) as long as they didn't have to go further east. Carthage is nothing compared to what they've already been through.

Exactly. Only after getting to the Pillars of Herakles would discontent flare up again (if Alexander would want to go on beyond that, which I doubt), simply because then they'd be in virtually unknown lands, without decent roads, and without any notion of what they were heading towards. As long as the idea is to go around the western Med conquering whatever seems worth the effort, the army will go along with it.


It was always my belief that Antipater was being brought back to act as viceroy in Asia while Alexander was away on campaign. This would signal Alexander had learned he can't just leave his empire without any supervision while away on a long campaign. It would also have the added effect of separating Antipater from Olympias, and thus relieving him the headache of having to deal with their personal loathing of each other.

As to the Antipater thing, that does make much more sense than Olympias finally winning their struggle. Though it is odd that Antipater seemed to think he was being summoned to his death.

Alexander was executing a lot of people in his last days and may have also massacred the Cossaeans back to the stone age, attributed to a growing temper after the mutiny in India and then the death of Hephaestion.

I do think the idea of making Antipater viceroy of Asia makes a lot of sense for Alexander's motives though.

Yes, summoning Antipatros to become regent/viceroy makes a lot more sense. The idea that Alexander was summoning him east to kill him is mostly based on the fact that Alexander had previously had Parmenion executed. The thing is that Parmenion's son had been involved in a traitors' conspiracy, and it remains uncertain wether Alexander had Parmenion killed as well because he believed him to have been involved as well... or because it was just a handy way to get rid of a potential usurper.

Taking into account that Antipatros' son, Kassandros, really seems to have hated Alexander, the idea is formed the Alexander wanted to once again get rid of a potentially dangerous father and son.

However... the situation is vastly different. Unlike with Parmenion, Alexander never had vehement disagreements with Antipatros, and seems to have trusted him implicitly. An Antipatros-Kassandros conspiracy also seems unlikely, since Antipatros was, by all accounts, rather wary of his own son. In OTL, Antipatros later passed over Kassandros to succeed him as regent, naming Polyperkhon instead. And in any case... if Alexander wanted Antipatros dead, summoning him east makes no sense. Easier to just have him killed back in Macedon (in which case Olymias would be suspected, and not Alexander).
 
Agreed. I also think the emphasis placed on Antipater supposedly being unwilling to head to Babylon is a result of trying to fit a narrative. The narrative was that Alexander was poisoned. Somebody had to be blamed, and who better than the last of Philip's old guard, the only person comparable to Parmenion in experience and stature in the empire, who was of course recently executed. It conveniently clears all his companions of any wrongdoing. It also probably made Cassander look bad, which would be of more immediate importance to some of the early writers who were of course writing while Cassander was still alive, but also, while Antipater was dead. It's easy to blame a dead man, he can't fight the charges.

Rather, Antipater was still in Macedon not because of some unwillingness to leave, but probably because he wasn't supposed to leave until Craterus arrived to take over. Leaving Macedon without a viceroy for any period of time doesn't appear to be a good idea, especially while tensions were at a knife's edge after the Exiles Decree.
 
Top