What If... Alexander?

[Citadelvette]

So over at the Thermopylae thread we had mention of Alexander's conquest of Persia. So I got to thinking of one of my favorite what ifs in history. What if Alexander had lived long enough to carry out his planned western campaign in North Africa and Europe? Had he mad it that far he would have faced the Carthaginians in Africa and then moving into Europe he would have had the Greek city states in Sicily and Italy and of course the early Roman Republic. I'm curious to the members thoughts here on the forum on this topic. Fire away!

Also: Since I know there are a lot of guys and gals who are military history buffs and such around here I thought I'd mention The Society for Military History. If you don't know what it is, it's a professional organization for military historians as well as amatures and buffs, so anyone can join. Here's the our site http://www.smh-hq.org

[old_pop2000]

Over time his army would get tired, he would have to return to Greece or risk losing his grip on Macedonia and the rest of Greece. Next problem is the trip from Alexandria to Carthage(currently it is a suburb of Tunis). The distance is over 1589 miles. This is over some of the worst deserts in the world. So, he is going to have to build a fleet and sail the 1589 miles. But, the Carthagenians are pretty good sailors, so Alexander is going to have to land close by, without them knowing of his arrival, disembark from the ships and march towards Carthage, which is a pretty well defended city. Interesting tactical problem, isn't it.

[tony_glazebrook]

Over time his army would get tired, he would have to return to Greece or risk losing his grip on Macedonia and the rest of Greece. Next problem is the trip from Alexandria to Carthage(currently it is a suburb of Tunis). The distance is over 1589 miles. This is over some of the worst deserts in the world. So, he is going to have to build a fleet and sail the 1589 miles. But, the Carthagenians are pretty good sailors, so Alexander is going to have to land close by, without them knowing of his arrival, disembark from the ships and march towards Carthage, which is a pretty well defended city. Interesting tactical problem, isn't it.

My money would be on him being successful. As he showed at Gaugamela and elsewhere he could take on big odds and strange weapons (elephants) and still win. And he was a very experienced at siege warfare. Give him 1-2 years to recuperate in his newly built city of Alexandria; build a fleet. The rest would be an even more 'glorious' story of conquest.

If you had applied normal calculus to his chances of succes on first venturing out, you would have had heavier odds against him getting as far as he did, defeating the persians and indians en route.

IMHO Alexander was one of those rare generals for whom normal calculus does not apply. And he was fighting in an age when personal courage and army morale played an even more important part in battlefield success. By the time he had reached Carthage the city would have been about ready to chuck it in, unless Hannibal had some great and worthy ancestors in his past to rally the citizens.

[old_pop2000]

The Carthagenians have been conflict with Greeks in Syracuse on Siciily. So they know Greek warfare and how they Greeks would fight. Carthage is isolated, so Alexander is going to have a long supply line. I am not certain he is going to have the advantage.

[George LeSauvage]

I don't see what could have stopped him. Presumably, to go west, he'd have been able to refit his army, so the "no more" factor wouldn't be so big as in India. (Plus, that part of the world was not wholly unknown to them). It took me over a decade to admit it, but he really was #1, all time. I couldn't get away from his ability to adjust to EVERY kind of warfare he encountered, & come off with a 1.000 w/l record. And unlike most others, he actually could measure himself accurately (as a general, at least). Look at Tyre; when Parmenio suggested a naval battle, Alexander recognized that he'd do better with his siege. Nelson & Napoleon never acknowledged that their lack of experience in the other's arena was a limit on their understanding. (Note that Parmenio's rejected suggestions are a running motif in Arrian. IIRC, only at Arbela, did Alex agree.)

I'm not sure Carthage would've been 1st. Perhaps he'd have been sparked by his uncle, Alexander of Epirus's remark, that he'd been fighting men, while his nephew fought women. If so, the history of Europe would be incredibly different. He was a master of seige, & unlike Hannibal, when the gods gave Alexander the knowledge of how to gain a victory, the included the knowledge of what to do with it.

A nasty piece of work as a human being, though.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I don't see what could have stopped him. Presumably, to go west, he'd have been able to refit his army, so the "no more" factor wouldn't be so big as in India. (Plus, that part of the world was not wholly unknown to them). It took me over a decade to admit it, but he really was #1, all time. I couldn't get away from his ability to adjust to EVERY kind of warfare he encountered, & come off with a 1.000 w/l record. And unlike most others, he actually could measure himself accurately (as a general, at least). Look at Tyre; when Parmenio suggested a naval battle, Alexander recognized that he'd do better with his siege. Nelson & Napoleon never acknowledged that their lack of experience in the other's arena was a limit on their understanding. (Note that Parmenio's rejected suggestions are a running motif in Arrian. IIRC, only at Arbela, did Alex agree.)

I'm not sure Carthage would've been 1st. Perhaps he'd have been sparked by his uncle, Alexander of Epirus's remark, that he'd been fighting men, while his nephew fought women. If so, the history of Europe would be incredibly different. He was a master of seige, & unlike Hannibal, when the gods gave Alexander the knowledge of how to gain a victory, the included the knowledge of what to do with it.

A nasty piece of work as a human being, though.

George:

The question comes down to whether his army could stand the pace, but of course his army was constantly rebuilding and adding new troops. It appears that he was able to build workable states in his aftermath, so we can assume for the most part he would have a secure rear area (rear and area same letters, coincidence? I think not). The question being did he have any idea of what to do next and how to maintain his conquests? He appears more general than ruler to me.

[old_pop2000]

If Carthage made peace with the Greeks in around 334 BC, then why is Alexander going to attack them. Somehow, that does not make sense, especially if he is busy with Saudi Arabia and that area.

[Citadelvette]

Alright, so if Alexander chose to not go after Carthage first, perhaps he would choose to take the remaining independent Greek city-states, which would mean fighting in Italy which would bring him in contact and subsequently in conflict with the Romans. Historically later Pyrhus of Epirus fought and beat Roman Legions but susatined irreplenishable losses, thus the Pyrhic Victory. So hypothetically, how would Alexander fare here. Evidence of Alexander's record and Pyrhu's victories over Romans leaves no doubt that he could win battles but could he sustain his efforts in Roman Italy?

[old_pop2000]

Alright, so if Alexander chose to not go after Carthage first, perhaps he would choose to take the remaining independent Greek city-states, which would mean fighting in Italy which would bring him in contact and subsequently in conflict with the Romans. Historically later Pyrhus of Epirus fought and beat Roman Legions but susatined irreplenishable losses, thus the Pyrhic Victory. So hypothetically, how would Alexander fare here. Evidence of Alexander's record and Pyrhu's victories over Romans leaves no doubt that he could win battles but could he sustain his efforts in Roman Italy?

I go back to the fact, that Alexander was not finished with his eastern adventures. He had defeated the Persian's, but had not consolidated his victories. He still had to head southward toward the Arabian area. Why would he march or sail his whole fleet across the Med, to attack Rome or any nation in the west, without consolidating his hold on Persia or heading home to solidify his hold on Greece.

To me, consolidation was more important than conquering new territory that hasn't been an adversary before. What was the state of relations between the italian states and Alexander, that is the determining factor?

Keep in mind, that during the Afghanistan incursion, Alexander received a message that the man who had helped to assassinate Darius, had returned and was leading a revolt in Aria. This was in his rear. There were also several revolts in Kabul, Afghanistan after April of 329. We know that after returning from the eastern adventures, Alexander returned to Babylon, he started planning his movement into the Arabian Peninsula, after that, he would head after Carthage, Sicily and Italy. But those were far into the future.

[George LeSauvage]

Obviously, we can never really know how he'd have been as a ruler, although I do think that (a) his ability to merge the Persians & Indians into his forces & government, indicates at least a short-term ability to keep things together; & (b) I do agree that he was conqueror 1st, emperor 2nd.

The most likely scenario for an Italian campaign would be as "protector' of the Greek city states to the south. At the time, Rome itself wasn't involved; Alex of Epirus was fighting the Samnites (IIRC), thus giving him a degree common interest with Rome. (The enemy of my enemy....)

Dennis, I don't see consolidation as so big a problem as you do. As I see it, the successors seem to have had much less trouble establishing rule over their satrapies, than with defending their possessions from one another. Assuming that Alexander's survival would have ruled out their strife--I don't think any would have put himself forward as "the strongest" while he lived--I suspect he would have been fairly free to pursue what he wished. (I doubt the Arabian venture was so much a matter of conquest, than of exploration, & doubt more that resistence would be very effective.) In so far as he did have troubles, it was largely with his own Macedonieans & Greeks, which if anything, would turn his attention westward.

[old_pop2000]

Obviously, we can never really know how he'd have been as a ruler, although I do think that (a) his ability to merge the Persians & Indians into his forces & government, indicates at least a short-term ability to keep things together; & (b) I do agree that he was conqueror 1st, emperor 2nd.

The most likely scenario for an Italian campaign would be as "protector' of the Greek city states to the south. At the time, Rome itself wasn't involved; Alex of Epirus was fighting the Samnites (IIRC), thus giving him a degree common interest with Rome. (The enemy of my enemy....)

Dennis, I don't see consolidation as so big a problem as you do. As I see it, the successors seem to have had much less trouble establishing rule over their satrapies, than with defending their possessions from one another. Assuming that Alexander's survival would have ruled out their strife--I don't think any would have put himself forward as "the strongest" while he lived--I suspect he would have been fairly free to pursue what he wished. (I doubt the Arabian venture was so much a matter of conquest, than of exploration, & doubt more that resistence would be very effective.) In so far as he did have troubles, it was largely with his own Macedonieans & Greeks, which if anything, would turn his attention westward.

It's all conjecture on our part. However, once Alexander and his army have left the eastern region and moved towards Carthage, Sicily and Italy, the problems of governing the people that the Persians had ruled with an iron fist begins. Once these suppressed people see the Greek generals leave and no sizeable Greek army and Alexander near, they can then begin to work together to revolt and throw the Greeks out. Consolidation is easy with Alexander close by, but after he has gone, it may fall apart.

[old_pop2000]

It's all conjecture on our part. However, once Alexander and his army have left the eastern region and moved towards Carthage, Sicily and Italy, the problems of governing the people that the Persians had ruled with an iron fist begins. Once these suppressed people see the Greek generals leave and no sizeable Greek army and Alexander near, they can then begin to work together to revolt and throw the Greeks out. Consolidation is easy with Alexander close by, but after he has gone, it may fall apart.
I want to point out some other salient issues about Alexander The Great and the way he fought.

1. Alexander, up to this point, had been fighting a series of polyglot nations and empires. Nations held together by the force of one group like the Persians. These types of opponents are easier to defeat by a single monoglot group like the Greeks. There is nothing to say that once Alexander meets a similar group like the Romans and the Carthagenians, that they won't be a little tougher to defeat.

2. Alexander's leadership style is dangerous, while inspiring. He leads from the front and has been wounded in battle many times. All it is going to take, is one well placed arrow or sword strike and he might be put down. He might survive but he might be killed.

3. The phalanx has vulnerabilities. while Phillip did improve upon it by increasing the number of ranks. However, in its first encounter with the Roman Legion at the Battle of Heraclea in 280 BC, Pyrrhus of Epirus did win but his losses were so heavy that we now call it a pyrrhric victory. The Roman legion was a more flexible formation, able to move replacement soldiers into place quicker hence it could fight longer in battle. Alexander died in 323 BC, forty three years before the battle of Heraclea. So, there is a chance he would have faced this formation, in a rudimentary form.

While Alexander is a brilliant tactician and strategist, his men are tiring, his pool of soldiers is weakening and he, himself, is leaving a series of battles that can be studied by his future opponents. We cannot assume he and his men will fight at the same level of competancy as they have against the Persians; a traditional enemy of the Greeks. Events may overtake Alexander and a future opponent may have some advantages that Alexander's brilliant tactics might not be able to overcome. In a system resting on the brilliance of one man, it only takes one draw in battle or defeat, for that brilliant leader to loose the respect of his men.

[Citadelvette]

I want to point out some other salient issues about Alexander The Great and the way he fought.

1. Alexander, up to this point, had been fighting a series of polyglot nations and empires. Nations held together by the force of one group like the Persians. These types of opponents are easier to defeat by a single monoglot group like the Greeks. There is nothing to say that once Alexander meets a similar group like the Romans and the Carthagenians, that they won't be a little tougher to defeat.

2. Alexander's leadership style is dangerous, while inspiring. He leads from the front and has been wounded in battle many times. All it is going to take, is one well placed arrow or sword strike and he might be put down. He might survive but he might be killed.

3. The phalanx has vulnerabilities. while Phillip did improve upon it by increasing the number of ranks. However, in its first encounter with the Roman Legion at the Battle of Heraclea in 280 BC, Pyrrhus of Epirus did win but his losses were so heavy that we now call it a pyrrhric victory. The Roman legion was a more flexible formation, able to move replacement soldiers into place quicker hence it could fight longer in battle. Alexander died in 323 BC, forty three years before the battle of Heraclea. So, there is a chance he would have faced this formation, in a rudimentary form.

While Alexander is a brilliant tactician and strategist, his men are tiring, his pool of soldiers is weakening and he, himself, is leaving a series of battles that can be studied by his future opponents. We cannot assume he and his men will fight at the same level of competancy as they have against the Persians; a traditional enemy of the Greeks. Events may overtake Alexander and a future opponent may have some advantages that Alexander's brilliant tactics might not be able to overcome. In a system resting on the brilliance of one man, it only takes one draw in battle or defeat, for that brilliant leader to loose the respect of his men.

Good points Dennis. Looking at the western conquests, Alexander will face three major groups; the Carthagenians, the Romans, and the Remaining free Greeks. While taking the remaining Greeks would not pose so great a challenge except for maybe Syracuse, but of course we might expect Alexander to make use of the Athenian experience in the Peloponesian War. However with Rome and Carthage he will be facing two entirely new animals. Carthage's system utilized a strong citizen navy and a mercenary army. This strong navy is really going pose a threat to Aleaxnder's supply lines which will have to be oversea because of the N. African desert. As to the army, it's mercenary make-up makes it a changing polyglot which might cause Alexander to underestimate it's strength. This strength lies in the inherent weakness of its make-up which good Carthegenian general will be able to exploit or else they wouldn't be there. Carthagenian generals were often killed as a result of a loss in battle, thus to win is to stay alive meaning Alexander will face generals of quality, perhaps not his equals but good nonetheless. On to Rome, as you said Alexander will ahve to face the early form of the versitile Legion. The Romans at this point had recently developed the legion as a response to their mountain campaigns against the Tuscans. The previous Roman phalanx-type formation was found to be lacking in the mountains where ajusting to mountain passes and inablity to detach a force with ease from the main body proved to be a liability. So possibly, Alexander might face a Carthagenian general who like Hannibal later with Rome will annihilate his formation and/or fall prey to the legion's versatilty or take untenable losses like Pyrrhus years later, who was in fact a relative of Alexander and considered the best Greek general of his time and second only to Alexander. ALl we can be sure of his ALexander would have faced the fights of his life, the possibilty of defeat, and that the battles would have mostly likely been extreme, bloody, and legendary.

[old_pop2000]

Good points Dennis. Looking at the western conquests, Alexander will face three major groups; the Carthagenians, the Romans, and the Remaining free Greeks. While taking the remaining Greeks would not pose so great a challenge except for maybe Syracuse, but of course we might expect Alexander to make use of the Athenian experience in the Peloponesian War. However with Rome and Carthage he will be facing two entirely new animals. Carthage's system utilized a strong citizen navy and a mercenary army. This strong navy is really going pose a threat to Aleaxnder's supply lines which will have to be oversea because of the N. African desert. As to the army, it's mercenary make-up makes it a changing polyglot which might cause Alexander to underestimate it's strength. This strength lies in the inherent weakness of its make-up which good Carthegenian general will be able to exploit or else they wouldn't be there. Carthagenian generals were often killed as a result of a loss in battle, thus to win is to stay alive meaning Alexander will face generals of quality, perhaps not his equals but good nonetheless. On to Rome, as you said Alexander will ahve to face the early form of the versitile Legion. The Romans at this point had recently developed the legion as a response to their mountain campaigns against the Tuscans. The previous Roman phalanx-type formation was found to be lacking in the mountains where ajusting to mountain passes and inablity to detach a force with ease from the main body proved to be a liability. So possibly, Alexander might face a Carthagenian general who like Hannibal later with Rome will annihilate his formation and/or fall prey to the legion's versatilty or take untenable losses like Pyrrhus years later, who was in fact a relative of Alexander and considered the best Greek general of his time and second only to Alexander. ALl we can be sure of his ALexander would have faced the fights of his life, the possibilty of defeat, and that the battles would have mostly likely been extreme, bloody, and legendary.
Good analysis! Don't assume the status quo will remain. We have to examine why Alexander was successful in the east. It was partially due to his brilliant use of tactics and his assessment of his enemy's capability and possible courses of action. But this was an enemy he and his countrymen had been fighting for centuries. They knew and understood their mode of fighting.

However, when facing Rome in Italy or Carthage, he now is facing a new enemy. We know Alexander is brilliant but how much of that brilliance is based on data from past ages? How will he conduct his forces against a new tactical system like the Legion or maybe Cartagenian Navy and military system that is just as good as his. He must rely on his generals, how good will his subordinates be against new foes, that they have never trained to fight.

[George LeSauvage]

Good analysis! Don't assume the status quo will remain. We have to examine why Alexander was successful in the east. It was partially due to his brilliant use of tactics and his assessment of his enemy's capability and possible courses of action. But this was an enemy he and his countrymen had been fighting for centuries. They knew and understood their mode of fighting.

However, when facing Rome in Italy or Carthage, he now is facing a new enemy. We know Alexander is brilliant but how much of that brilliance is based on data from past ages? How will he conduct his forces against a new tactical system like the Legion or maybe Cartagenian Navy and military system that is just as good as his. He must rely on his generals, how good will his subordinates be against new foes, that they have never trained to fight.

As I understand this, you are saying that Alexander had won, so far, in a type of war & an enemy, which the Greeks were accustomed to facing. I have to disagree. That is arguable for his battles through Gaugemela, but his record contains far more than that. He then took on the Scythians, fighting the kind of Asian light cavalry armies which for centuries would befuddle Europeans, & which he would never before have seen, & drubbed them. He managed to defeat a mountain region, in terrain the likes of which no Greek had seen. Then at Hydaspes faced an army whose elephants negated the very elite cavalry which he had so often used as the decisive arm. No problem.

If there is one thing which is clear from Alexander's career, it is his versatility; his incredible ablility to adapt his tactics to suit new challenges wherever he encountered them. (It is this, above all, which makes me place him, reluctantly, as the greatest of all military leaders.) Add to this his radical use of combined arms, and his unprecedented ability to make the most strategic use of his victories, & I find it hard not to see the deck stacked heavily in his favor.

Citadelvette: I don't understand these points:

"This strength lies in the inherent weakness of its make-up which good Carthegenian general will be able to exploit ..."

"So possibly, Alexander might face a Carthagenian general who like Hannibal later with Rome will annihilate his formation..."

Will you explain?

[old_pop2000]

As I understand this, you are saying that Alexander had won, so far, in a type of war & an enemy, which the Greeks were accustomed to facing. I have to disagree. That is arguable for his battles through Gaugemela, but his record contains far more than that. He then took on the Scythians, fighting the kind of Asian light cavalry armies which for centuries would befuddle Europeans, & which he would never before have seen, & drubbed them. He managed to defeat a mountain region, in terrain the likes of which no Greek had seen. Then at Hydaspes faced an army whose elephants negated the very elite cavalry which he had so often used as the decisive arm. No problem.

If there is one thing which is clear from Alexander's career, it is his versatility; his incredible ablility to adapt his tactics to suit new challenges wherever he encountered them. (It is this, above all, which makes me place him, reluctantly, as the greatest of all military leaders.) Add to this his radical use of combined arms, and his unprecedented ability to make the most strategic use of his victories, & I find it hard not to see the deck stacked heavily in his favor.

Citadelvette: I don't understand these points:

"This strength lies in the inherent weakness of its make-up which good Carthegenian general will be able to exploit ..."

"So possibly, Alexander might face a Carthagenian general who like Hannibal later with Rome will annihilate his formation..."

Will you explain?
First, I asked the question as to whether some of Alexander's brilliance wasn't due to his familiarity with the Persian's and how they fought. It was a valid question, if he was going to continue his march to capture the Mediterranean states.

Second, He did defeat the Scythians, a nomadic group, by luring them into attacking a cavalry unit then surrounding them with the bulk of his forces. It was a perfect maneuver. Brilliant? Maybe that's overstating the case. I don't think the Scythian's were in the same league as the Carthagenians or the Romans in around 300 BC.

Yes, he fought against the Indian's at Hydaspes, and in attacking their castle, was struck by an arrow and had to be carried back on his shield. The wound ended the Indian adventure and probably left him vulnerable to the pneumonia that killed him. I would say that proves my point, that his personal bravery and leadership style probably would have gotten him killed eventually. Alexander also had losses of over 4000 men from those elephants. What sort of brilliant tactics? It was a hard fought victory.

The issue is that he died early in life and we have never been able to examine where he might have had weakness in this tactics. We cannot assume that the status quo will remain. Yes, he demonstrated brilliance against some foes, he did take very heavy casualties in some battles, gaining victories by the bravery of his soldiers.

[Citadelvette]

As I understand this, you are saying that Alexander had won, so far, in a type of war & an enemy, which the Greeks were accustomed to facing. I have to disagree. That is arguable for his battles through Gaugemela, but his record contains far more than that. He then took on the Scythians, fighting the kind of Asian light cavalry armies which for centuries would befuddle Europeans, & which he would never before have seen, & drubbed them. He managed to defeat a mountain region, in terrain the likes of which no Greek had seen. Then at Hydaspes faced an army whose elephants negated the very elite cavalry which he had so often used as the decisive arm. No problem.

If there is one thing which is clear from Alexander's career, it is his versatility; his incredible ablility to adapt his tactics to suit new challenges wherever he encountered them. (It is this, above all, which makes me place him, reluctantly, as the greatest of all military leaders.) Add to this his radical use of combined arms, and his unprecedented ability to make the most strategic use of his victories, & I find it hard not to see the deck stacked heavily in his favor.

Citadelvette: I don't understand these points:

"This strength lies in the inherent weakness of its make-up which good Carthegenian general will be able to exploit ..."

"So possibly, Alexander might face a Carthagenian general who like Hannibal later with Rome will annihilate his formation..."

Will you explain?

Certainly.
"This strength lies in the inherent weakness of its make-up which good Carthegenian general will be able to exploit ..."

Basically waht I was getting at is ALexander would probably see the hodge-podge of mercenaries in a Carthagenian army as a weakness considering his experience with the Perians and their polyglot armies. Since losing for a Carthegenian general meant death either on the field or by execution at home, and since word of Alexander has certainly got to Carthage, their going to send their best at him. That means a commander who can take this non-uniform force and use tactics based around what he has to win, a fast thinker who can react to changes. Baically the Carthgenian will turn what the Greeks and most will see as disadvantage into a great strength.

"So possibly, Alexander might face a Carthagenian general who like Hannibal later with Rome will annihilate his formation..."

Moving along. Hannibal, as one of these successful Carthagenian generals often made use of deception and strategic withdrawls as lures to bring in legions, which were often superior in numbers to his army, towards him concentrated so that once they came upon his infantry and supporting elephants they woulld be enveloped by his cavalry and thus surrounded, slaughtered. So possibly Alexander might be lured into moving his force or at least a bulk of it into a trap which will cost him his army.

[Citadelvette]

First, I asked the question as to whether some of Alexander's brilliance wasn't due to his familiarity with the Persian's and how they fought. It was a valid question, if he was going to continue his march to capture the Mediterranean states.

Second, He did defeat the Scythians, a nomadic group, by luring them into attacking a cavalry unit then surrounding them with the bulk of his forces. It was a perfect maneuver. Brilliant? Maybe that's overstating the case. I don't think the Scythian's were in the same league as the Carthagenians or the Romans in around 300 BC.

Yes, he fought against the Indian's at Hydaspes, and in attacking their castle, was struck by an arrow and had to be carried back on his shield. The wound ended the Indian adventure and probably left him vulnerable to the pneumonia that killed him. I would say that proves my point, that his personal bravery and leadership style probably would have gotten him killed eventually. Alexander also had losses of over 4000 men from those elephants. What sort of brilliant tactics? It was a hard fought victory.

The issue is that he died early in life and we have never been able to examine where he might have had weakness in this tactics. We cannot assume that the status quo will remain. Yes, he demonstrated brilliance against some foes, he did take very heavy casualties in some battles, gaining victories by the bravery of his soldiers.

I would say that at the Hydapses Alexander's brilliance is in his feints to move across the river undetected so as to face his opponents, once their the two armies really just slug it out head on. The Indians proved to be the only real challenge to Alexander, mainly because they like the Macedonians and other Greeks under Philip and Alexander had improved upon their own well tested form of regional warfare, had a strong central system and well disciplined troops like Alexander, and they were on their own turf. This goes along way into explaining why Alexander left much of their powerbase intact after his conquest.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I would say that at the Hydapses Alexander's brilliance is in his feints to move across the river undetected so as to face his opponents, once their the two armies really just slug it out head on. The Indians proved to be the only real challenge to Alexander, mainly because they like the Macedonians and other Greeks under Philip and Alexander had improved upon their own well tested form of regional warfare, had a strong central system and well disciplined troops like Alexander, and they were on their own turf. This goes along way into explaining why Alexander left much of their powerbase intact after his conquest.

Citadel:

From this discussion, it is apparent that Alexander had really good intel and could analyze his opponent's strengths and weaknesses rapidly. One wonders if he had individuals in his service who may have at one time served with his potential enemies and were familiar with the styles of combat he would have to face?

[Citadelvette]

Citadel:

From this discussion, it is apparent that Alexander had really good intel and could analyze his opponent's strengths and weaknesses rapidly. One wonders if he had individuals in his service who may have at one time served with his potential enemies and were familiar with the styles of combat he would have to face?

I agree that he would have learned of the tactics of those he was facing by picking up people at each conquest familiar with the next enemy's tactics, it's just a question of how familiar and how much intel. I would see this becoming increasingly difficult as the march goes on. No doubting Alexander's brilliance, quick thinking, reaction, and learnedness. All where vital to his success and would be important in the west, but just as he faced opponents in India almost as skilled as himself he will find more in Carthage and Greco-Roman Italy. However, he will have a surprise in the west, the elephant he aquired in India the ancestors of those used by Hannibal Barca.