Why didn't Alexander attack Carthage?

[Paralus]

expiration date?

Antigonus and Lysimachus died on the battlefield in their early 80s living extreme and violent lives.

A date he reached in 323 having - on the face of it - asked just that little too much of a worn out set of organs. Justin (X11. 13) is a little more direct than the more careful (of his hero) Arrian or the apologetic Plutarch:

Returning, therefore, to Babylon, and allowing himself several days for rest, he renewed, in his usual manner, the entertainments which had been for some time discontinued, resigning himself wholly to mirth, and joining in his cups the night to the day.

Antigonus and Lysimachus, he of the famous frugality, may have lived "violent" lives but we have no information on any excesses such as the above. More importantly, they were not ever planning to spend their vitality on an ever expanding empire; rather to control as much of what was already there. I doubt their lives will have been as frenetic or violent as would Alexander's had he managed to survive the combined effects of his wounds and excessive binge drinking.

He reached his expiration date in June 323 and duly...expired. Given the absolute rejection of his "plans", so too had his army and, most certainly, his marshals.

[aleksandros]

so your only point is that we have no clue how much Lysimachus and Antigonus drank.
okay Alexander was drinking alone.

This discussion isnt about alexander's ability to live a long life, but what his priorities would have been if alive for long. its a miracle he reached 20 If you ask me.

[Paralus]

so your only point is that we have no clue how much Lysimachus and Antigonus drank…

This discussion isnt about alexander's ability to live a long life, but what his priorities would have been if alive for long. its a miracle he reached 20 If you ask me.

Not at all. Part of the point is – unless we wish to ignore it – we know that Alexander abused alcohol and, by extension, his body.

It was simply a matter of time until he was killed; a matter of time until there was no Black Cleitus or Peucestas to save his neck.

The other part is shining a torch on the pop-idol worship of an often murderous conqueror. For instance:

Alexander was always careful of his back and we see that throught his campaign, even from the very beginning…

This has been addressed elsewhere. Alexander was entirely practical. Practical in the sense that he’d organise whatever it took to allow him to leave and move on to the next phase of conquest. That meant two years of backtracking throughout Bactria, Arachosia and Sogdiana where he sorely underestimated the resistance to his benevolent civilising works. Which brings me to…

i meant no serious military revolt was provoked in his back.

Nothing serious in the killing of his satrap (Philip?) and the defeat of his forces in India the moment Alexander had turned and left. Or that Craterus, having left Alexander before the Gedrosian debacle, had to put down an uprising in Arachosia. Or that Leonnatus, once Alexander departed, lost many men putting down the revolt of the last people subdued by Alexander, the Oreitans. Or that Peithon removed himself from the area to the Punjab thus ceding, in effect, southern India.

No, no “serious” revolts – military or otherwise.

…so i believe that he was assured that Carthaginians would pose no threat. And thats pretty easy to guess cause the Carthaginians were not stupid, they had seen what happened to the persians and the phoenicians so far and they knew their army is inferior of Darius' and Carthage's city walls inferior of Tyre's.

I’d suggest that the Carthaginians had a reasonable view of the strength of their forces and of their empire. I don’t know how you would presume to know that they thought themselves inferior to Darius III’s forces or that their fortifications were inferior to any other city. Their naval yards and arsenal were exceptionally well protected.

[Phoebus]

expiration date?

Antigonus and Lysimachus died on the battlefield in their early 80s living extreme and violent lives.

I seriously doubt Antigonus had to deal with the effects of injuries of Alexander's caliber (see below)--"Monophthalmos" or not. Add to that Gedrosia, alcohol abuse, etc.

All of this is directly tied to what his activities would have been. I may disagree with Paralus as to what his motivations were for things like the Bactrian colonies, but I won't pretend that Alexander was an adventurer. Without the physical ability to take part in an exploration, I simply don't see the willingness to sponsor such large-scale projects.

Arabia was in the vicinity; Carthage was in the vicinity. The lands beyond India were not. Upon returning to Persia proper, Alexander received over 50,000 Epigonoi and Persians. Together with his Asian cavalry--many of whom he had restructured so that they used Macedonian weapons--he had an army every bit as large as the one he had when he went to India the first time. I may be reaching here, but I find it very telling that he didn't go right back if he indeed had the strength in him to do so. I'm by no means a medical expert, but if Alexander did indeed suffer from a collapsed lung, that's an injury that he would have dealt with for his remaining life.

[aleksandros]

Alexander was always careful of his back and we see that throught his campaign, even from the very beginning…

This has been addressed elsewhere. Alexander was entirely practical. Practical in the sense that he’d organise whatever it took to allow him to leave and move on to the next phase of conquest. That meant two years of backtracking throughout Bactria, Arachosia and Sogdiana where he sorely underestimated the resistance to his benevolent civilising works. Which brings me to…

i meant no serious military revolt was provoked in his back.

Nothing serious in the killing of his satrap (Philip?) and the defeat of his forces in India the moment Alexander had turned and left. Or that Craterus, having left Alexander before the Gedrosian debacle, had to put down an uprising in Arachosia. Or that Leonnatus, once Alexander departed, lost many men putting down the revolt of the last people subdued by Alexander, the Oreitans. Or that Peithon removed himself from the area to the Punjab thus ceding, in effect, southern India.

No, no “serious” revolts – military or otherwise.

…so i believe that he was assured that Carthaginians would pose no threat. And thats pretty easy to guess cause the Carthaginians were not stupid, they had seen what happened to the persians and the phoenicians so far and they knew their army is inferior of Darius' and Carthage's city walls inferior of Tyre's.

I’d suggest that the Carthaginians had a reasonable view of the strength of their forces and of their empire. I don’t know how you would presume to know that they thought themselves inferior to Darius III’s forces or that their fortifications were inferior to any other city. Their naval yards and arsenal were exceptionally well protected.

defeat of his forces in India? Craterus didnt leave Alexander he was comanded to take the 1/3 of the army through that route which was different and meant he had to conquer any peoples who werent contacted by greeks before. And Gedrosia was not a debacle but one of Alexander's most glorious victories. How many men did leonatus loose? Are you serious? We are talking about serious military revolts here, not what a crazy tribe thought to do to resist to the burning of dead animals.

And you talk about people Alexander needed to save his ass every now and then.....how many many macedonian asses had alexander saved with his leadership??
We dont disagrre on that, i say again that for me its a miracle he managed to reach the age of 20.

I don’t know how you would presume to know that they thought themselves inferior to Darius III’s forces or that their fortifications were inferior to any other city. Their naval yards and arsenal were exceptionally well protected.

oh god that was sooo .....i dont know.... lol think dude!
i believe the carthaginians knew who was the master of Phoenicians and all about his empire and resourses. ooooh maybe thats why they didnt try to free phoenicians!!!

[Paralus]

Arabia was in the vicinity; Carthage was in the vicinity. The lands beyond India were not.

Quite. India was a memory. I seriously doubt that Alexander harboured any overwhelming desire to return. By the time of Alexander’s death, there were no Macedonian satraps on the Indian frontier. Peithon had withdrawn to, essentially, the Hindu Kush. Porus was left to his own devices and his writ now extended to “ocean”.

Patently, Alexander was not about to pay the manpower cost of holding India. A young Indian prince, a little further to the east and south of Alexander’s Indian anabasis, had taken note. Porus, and others, would soon hear of Chandragutpa.

defeat of his forces in India?

Indeed. By 300 BCE, not a single Macedonian garrison remained in the Indian “satrapies”. By the time Alexander scraped his way out of disaster in the Makran, Nicanor, military satrap of the important Indus-Parapamisadae corridor was dead due to a native revolt; Philip the satrap of the “upper” Indian territories was dead at the hands of his native mercenaries in a native revolt and Apollophanes, the satrap of the lower Punjab or Indian territories was also dead due to revolt.

In turn, as Alexander turned his back to leave, the conquered Indian provinces revolted. Sambus began it, Musicanus followed and the Oreitae were the last.

Diod. 17.105.8:
These messengers hurried to the satraps of these provinces and caused supplies to be transported in large quantities to the specified place. Alexander lost many of his soldiers, nevertheless, first because of shortages that were not relieved, and then at a later stage of this march, when some of the Oreitae attacked Leonnatus's division and inflicted severe losses, after which they escaped to their own territory.

“Severe” losses. Including the elimination of three satraps. But then these do not matter for as you so eloquently observe:

We are talking about serious military revolts here, not what a crazy tribe thought to do to resist to the burning of dead animals.

Seems you share the view of your hero: these were merely “crazy tribes” crying out for pacification and civilising. Good thing they got it – even though it was only transitory in the extreme.

Craterus didnt leave Alexander he was comanded to take the 1/3 of the army through that route which was different and meant he had to conquer any peoples who werent contacted by greeks before.

Well of course Craterus had left or departed prior to Alexander’s crossing of the Makran. He had taken the Mulla Pass (or possibly the Bolan) into Arachosia and Drangiana. An area that had a Macedonian satrap: Stassanor. Which “peoples who weren't contacted by greeks before” did he conquer? He certainly come across a native rebellion which he had crushed.

And Gedrosia was not a debacle but one of Alexander's most glorious victories.

One wonders what the thousands who died for this “glorious” victory thought? Alexander survived this crossing. The sources all relate the terrible privations and hardships suffered by the column – not to mentions the natives whose meagre provisions Alexander and his troops stole on the way, they too will have died a horrible death – for a march that was not a necessity.

Diod 17.105. 6 -7 (and see above):
Alexander passed through this territory with difficulty because of the shortage of provisions and entered a region which was desert, and lacking in everything which could be used to sustain life. Many died of hunger. The army of the Macedonians was disheartened, and Alexander sank into no ordinary grief and anxiety. It seemed a dreadful thing that they who had excelled all in fighting ability and in equipment for war should perish ingloriously from lack of food in a desert country.

But I forget: Alexander can do no wrong, even if he kills his own men and their wives and children via starvation, exposure and thirst. Glorious indeed.

And you talk about people Alexander needed to save his ass every now and then.....how many many macedonian asses had alexander saved with his leadership??

See above. How many Macedonians died as a result of Alexander’s desire to go beyond the Persian Empire and invade the lower Punjab? How many breathed their last for his eternal glory?

I believe the piece of anatomy was neck.

[aleksandros]

Arabia was in the vicinity; Carthage was in the vicinity. The lands beyond India were not.

Quite. India was a memory. I seriously doubt that Alexander harboured any overwhelming desire to return. By the time of Alexander’s death, there were no Macedonian satraps on the Indian frontier. Peithon had withdrawn to, essentially, the Hindu Kush. Porus was left to his own devices and his writ now extended to “ocean”.

Patently, Alexander was not about to pay the manpower cost of holding India. A young Indian prince, a little further to the east and south of Alexander’s Indian anabasis, had taken note. Porus, and others, would soon hear of Chandragutpa.

defeat of his forces in India?

Indeed. By 300 BCE, not a single Macedonian garrison remained in the Indian “satrapies”. By the time Alexander scraped his way out of disaster in the Makran, Nicanor, military satrap of the important Indus-Parapamisadae corridor was dead due to a native revolt; Philip the satrap of the “upper” Indian territories was dead at the hands of his native mercenaries in a native revolt and Apollophanes, the satrap of the lower Punjab or Indian territories was also dead due to revolt.

In turn, as Alexander turned his back to leave, the conquered Indian provinces revolted. Sambus began it, Musicanus followed and the Oreitae were the last.

Diod. 17.105.8:
These messengers hurried to the satraps of these provinces and caused supplies to be transported in large quantities to the specified place. Alexander lost many of his soldiers, nevertheless, first because of shortages that were not relieved, and then at a later stage of this march, when some of the Oreitae attacked Leonnatus's division and inflicted severe losses, after which they escaped to their own territory.

“Severe” losses. Including the elimination of three satraps. But then these do not matter for as you so eloquently observe:

We are talking about serious military revolts here, not what a crazy tribe thought to do to resist to the burning of dead animals.

Seems you share the view of your hero: these were merely “crazy tribes” crying out for pacification and civilising. Good thing they got it – even though it was only transitory in the extreme.

Craterus didnt leave Alexander he was comanded to take the 1/3 of the army through that route which was different and meant he had to conquer any peoples who werent contacted by greeks before.

Well of course Craterus had left or departed prior to Alexander’s crossing of the Makran. He had taken the Mulla Pass (or possibly the Bolan) into Arachosia and Drangiana. An area that had a Macedonian satrap: Stassanor. Which “peoples who weren't contacted by greeks before” did he conquer? He certainly come across a native rebellion which he had crushed.

And Gedrosia was not a debacle but one of Alexander's most glorious victories.

One wonders what the thousands who died for this “glorious” victory thought? Alexander survived this crossing. The sources all relate the terrible privations and hardships suffered by the column – not to mentions the natives whose meagre provisions Alexander and his troops stole on the way, they too will have died a horrible death – for a march that was not a necessity.

Diod 17.105. 6 -7 (and see above):
Alexander passed through this territory with difficulty because of the shortage of provisions and entered a region which was desert, and lacking in everything which could be used to sustain life. Many died of hunger. The army of the Macedonians was disheartened, and Alexander sank into no ordinary grief and anxiety. It seemed a dreadful thing that they who had excelled all in fighting ability and in equipment for war should perish ingloriously from lack of food in a desert country.

But I forget: Alexander can do no wrong, even if he kills his own men and their wives and children via starvation, exposure and thirst. Glorious indeed.

And you talk about people Alexander needed to save his ass every now and then.....how many many macedonian asses had alexander saved with his leadership??

See above. How many Macedonians died as a result of Alexander’s desire to go beyond the Persian Empire and invade the lower Punjab? How many breathed their last for his eternal glory?

I believe the piece of anatomy was neck.

man man .....
DID anyone raise a 30.000 army in the name of lord to attack Alexander on his back???
Thats what i am freaking telling.
Peithon was a Satrap of Indus until 316 when did he exactly withdraw??
Porus controled the area east of Hydaspes in the name of Alexander and the area between hydaspes and Indus was given to Taxiles again in the name of Alexander. Peithon was in charge of the greek colonies on Indus and porus and taxiles ruled tha natives in these area, okay they werent macedonians but why you think that means macedonians lost control of the punjsb before alexander's death??? The control was lost from 316 onwards by Sandrokottos.

'Alexander was not about to pay the manpower cost of holding India.'

How do you know that?? with all the resources of the world in his hands? lol
Chandragupta Maurya started taking note while Alexander was alive?? If yes wow, if not your out of subject again.


Then your telling again about after 300bc.... I dont care! We are talking about Alexander.
Your telling about how Philip died as if i didnt know thats okay, but how does this prove to me Alexander didnt have his back safe Always. conspiracies always happen! and what did Alexander do about that? he simply said Eudamus and Taxiles take control until i sent a knew guy for the greek colonies... omg what a crushing defeat of macedonians on the banks of Indus! Alexander run! we are losing it! The Empire is falling apart! AAAaaaaah!

'Seems you share the view of your hero: these were merely “crazy tribes” crying out for pacification and civilising. Good thing they got it – even though it was only transitory in the extreme. '

damn that hurt my feelings.

'Well of course Craterus had left or departed prior to Alexander’s crossing of the Makran. He had taken the Mulla Pass (or possibly the Bolan) into Arachosia and Drangiana. An area that had a Macedonian satrap: Stassanor. Which “peoples who weren't contacted by greeks before” did he conquer? He certainly come across a native rebellion which he had crushed. '

see again? a 'native' rebellion, still you got nothing.
As for the names of the the new tribes he put under macedonian yoke (you like that huh?) i dont have them but its easy even for a dummy to see that most of Craterus route was on soil never stepped by greeks before. Ofcourse he crossed territory controlled by greeks also since Alexander had made that southern turn during the conquest of Afghanistan (same as soviets did) you know, south to Kandahar and then norh to Kabul.

'One wonders what the thousands who died for this “glorious” victory thought?'

excuse me? Did he drug anyone to campaign with him?
I cant say what everyone who died thought... every person faces death different.
I think we all know Alexander put himself in more danger than anyone else so whats your point?

'not to mentions the natives whose meagre provisions Alexander and his troops stole on the way, they too will have died a horrible death'

well if you havent seen it yet Alexander was the greatest thief of all times, since he made the greatest armed robbery of all times if you consider the treasures he obtained to the treasure worldwide under circulation at that time, so try and tell me something new.

' for a march that was not a necessity.But I forget: Alexander can do no wrong, even if he kills his own men and their wives and children via starvation, exposure and thirst. Glorious indeed.'

whats a necessity and whats not... thats a philosophical debate.
I know that with that march he then again managed to achieve something noone else had achieved before. yes by a great death toll. if your hero is jesus then Alexander is burning deep inside hell!!

'See above. How many Macedonians died as a result of Alexander’s desire to go beyond the Persian Empire and invade the lower Punjab? How many breathed their last for his eternal glory?'

You are really confused. We all die in the end. The question is how.
These macedonians were soldiers and thats what their job was, to fight and die. if philip was a bad general they might have died in illiria, paeonia, thrace, chaeroneia, if Alexander was a bad general they all would be sooo dead long before India. Its the life they chose it was their best way to sacrifice and provide for their families. you saw how the soldiers reacted whenever Alexander tried to disband them, and you know what kind of financial support was given to the families of all dead macedonian soldiers. And if i had a choice to choose my death trust me i d go for it so that i could proudly say to the folks in heaven or hell that i died in India serving the son of god.


Anyways i would take it if one said 'yeah! Spartans freaking attacked Alexanders back with an army!'
but that was it. ofcourse Alexander knew about that threat so he left Antipater with enough resources for any southern threat.

[Paralus]

man man .....
DID anyone raise a 30.000 army in the name of lord to attack Alexander on his back???
Thats what i am freaking telling.

Yes, right, got you. A rebellion of 25,000 wouldn’t count then, just as those in which satraps die do not count. Plenty appeared to be involved in the revolt under Musicanus but we only have the somewhat exaggerated figures of the slaughtered. It was widespread and it took time to bring under control. As I can’t claim, from the sources, that an army of 30,000 was involved it’s best to not mention it I suppose.

you saw how the soldiers reacted whenever Alexander tried to disband them…

You take a very simplistic take on this. But then such a simplistic take, of course, suits your view.

And if i had a choice to choose my death trust me i d go for it so that i could proudly say to the folks in heaven or hell that i died in India serving the son of god.

That about sums it up really.

Anyways i would take it if one said 'yeah! Spartans freaking attacked Alexanders back with an army!'
but that was it. ofcourse Alexander knew about that threat so he left Antipater with enough resources for any southern threat.

In the begininig, yes. He left some 6,000 national troops as well as mercenaries with the regent. By the time of his death Antipater could not defend Macedonia as he no longer had the manpower. His absent king had summoned them east and thus the regent was embarrassed in the field in the Lamian war.

Peithon was a Satrap of Indus until 316 when did he exactly withdraw??

By the time Alexander returned west, Peithon was governing from the Hindu Kush. He had left the lower Punjab (more below).

[Porus controled the area east of Hydaspes in the name of Alexander and the area between hydaspes and Indus was given to Taxiles again in the name of Alexander. Peithon was in charge of the greek colonies on Indus and porus and taxiles ruled tha natives in these area, okay they werent macedonians but why you think that means macedonians lost control of the punjsb before alexander's death??? The control was lost from 316 onwards by Sandrokottos.

Alexander initially thought to replace his dead satraps. He did not though. Taxiles continued in his position (with Eudamus) and Peithon was transferred to the north-west into the Cophen valley area of the Hindu Kush with the Macedonian.Alexander then expanded Porus’ writ to cover the lot from the Hydaspes down to the delta. That Porus ever exercised direct authority over this extended are is debatable. By the time of his death Alexander had, in essence, decided that the Indus could not be held by Macedonian manpower or Macedonian satraps. The cost was too high. Direct Macedonian supervision was limited to the Khyber Pass and the Hindu Kush. Beyond Indian princes ruled. To quote Bosworth (Conquest and Empire p240):

The conquest of India, for all its paper victories, proved only that the country could not be held down without an unacceptable expenditure of manpower.

That was the reality of Alexander’s Indian “empire” at his death.

Your telling about how Philip died as if i didnt know thats okay, but how does this prove to me Alexander didnt have his back safe Always. conspiracies always happen! and what did Alexander do about that? he simply said Eudamus and Taxiles take control until i sent a knew guy for the greek colonies...

With respect to taxiles, see above. As for the previous sentence, I’ve no idea what you are trying to say. Try to be a little less emotional. If you are attempting to pass off rebellions as some sort of minor conspiracy then you need to get a sense of proportion.

'Seems you share the view of your hero: these were merely “crazy tribes” crying out for pacification and civilising. Good thing they got it – even though it was only transitory in the extreme. '

damn that hurt my feelings.

It wasn’t meant to.

.'One wonders what the thousands who died for this “glorious” victory thought?'

excuse me? Did he drug anyone to campaign with him?
I cant say what everyone who died thought... every person faces death different.
I think we all know Alexander put himself in more danger than anyone else so whats your point?

I know that with that march he then again managed to achieve something noone else had achieved before. yes by a great death toll. if your hero is jesus then Alexander is burning deep inside hell!!.

Yes he achieved it. He achieved at a horrible cost. A commander’s first duty is to his men. Alexander failed in this duty in his desire to outdo fabled predecessors. God knows how many he killed on this “glorious” march.

There is little point to further discussion. The scales are firmly attached to your eyes.

[aleksandros]

you have a completely different approach on Alexander's administration.
If you were less irrelevant to the subject i d try and debate some more with you.
I dont mean to offend you as i believe i can learn things from anyone.

[Phoebus]

One wonders what the thousands who died for this “glorious” victory thought? Alexander survived this crossing. The sources all relate the terrible privations and hardships suffered by the column – not to mentions the natives whose meagre provisions Alexander and his troops stole on the way, they too will have died a horrible death – for a march that was not a necessity.

Diod 17.105. 6 -7 (and see above):
Alexander passed through this territory with difficulty because of the shortage of provisions and entered a region which was desert, and lacking in everything which could be used to sustain life. Many died of hunger. The army of the Macedonians was disheartened, and Alexander sank into no ordinary grief and anxiety. It seemed a dreadful thing that they who had excelled all in fighting ability and in equipment for war should perish ingloriously from lack of food in a desert country.

But I forget: Alexander can do no wrong, even if he kills his own men and their wives and children via starvation, exposure and thirst. Glorious indeed.

To be fair, if Engels' theory* is correct, Alexander's Gedrosian gambit was the best course of action--both for his men and the lands they had already passed through.

* Meaning that the territories Alexander had already passed through would not have been able to sustain him again; that the fleet should have been able to re-supply him, therefore preventing privations in the desert.

I'm certain that Alexander viewed challenge of crossing Gedrosia as a heroic feat, but I doubt he was suicidal. Unlike the previous monarchs who tried to make the journey, Alexander had the aforementioned fleet as well. In a way, this was probably a "two birds with one stone" opportunity for him: avoid a logistical difficulty (doubling back through lands that Engels says wouldn't have been able to support upwards of 100,000 people and their animals again so soon) while also adding a feather to his cap--much needed after being forced to turn around at India. Still a second prize compared to reaching Ocean's shores... but better than no prize at all.

In the begininig, yes. He left some 6,000 national troops as well as mercenaries with the regent.

Was it that few? I just remember Arrian's account, that he left him with 12,000 infantry and 1,500 or so cavalry--curiously similar to Alexander's own "core" Macedonian contingent in terms of numbers.

I know Antipater later had to send reinforcements to Alexander... but I thought those were new recruits, as opposed to the existing formations.

[jasonxx]

War is war. Conquering is death and slaughter.

Empire Building then and now is based on taking from others what is not yours by conning or war. The Christians have been doing it in more subtle ways for centuries. Now governments and economies conquer with economics.

Since the myth of Cane and Able one man has tried to out do his neighbour one way or another. Its intrinsic Human nature.

Anyone with half a brain understands what Alexander was and what his ideals and goals were. Was he brought up to ask Darius for his Empire as the Persians had asked there foes before?

What we do know he was very good and succesful at what he did. Paralus Quote. "We know Alexander abused Alcohol" How does anyone know that if so then the whole Macedonian man folk abused Alcohol. I know more about Alcohol abuse than anyone in this forum and Id say Alexander didnt abuse Alcohol.

And for all the negative stuff that comes out of Paralus Mouth I just dont understand why you still read and study and again criticize some one you clearly have a problem.

Ive never once heard you give Alexander credit for anything. So why waste your time reading about the guy.Maybe divert to Walt Disney or something a little mor e placid for your sensitive tendencies.

Kenny

[amyntoros]

One wonders what the thousands who died for this “glorious” victory thought? Alexander survived this crossing. The sources all relate the terrible privations and hardships suffered by the column – not to mentions the natives whose meagre provisions Alexander and his troops stole on the way, they too will have died a horrible death – for a march that was not a necessity.

Diod 17.105. 6 -7 (and see above):
Alexander passed through this territory with difficulty because of the shortage of provisions and entered a region which was desert, and lacking in everything which could be used to sustain life. Many died of hunger. The army of the Macedonians was disheartened, and Alexander sank into no ordinary grief and anxiety. It seemed a dreadful thing that they who had excelled all in fighting ability and in equipment for war should perish ingloriously from lack of food in a desert country.

But I forget: Alexander can do no wrong, even if he kills his own men and their wives and children via starvation, exposure and thirst. Glorious indeed.

To be fair, if Engels' theory* is correct, Alexander's Gedrosian gambit was the best course of action--both for his men and the lands they had already passed through.

* Meaning that the territories Alexander had already passed through would not have been able to sustain him again; that the fleet should have been able to re-supply him, therefore preventing privations in the desert.

I'm certain that Alexander viewed challenge of crossing Gedrosia as a heroic feat, but I doubt he was suicidal. Unlike the previous monarchs who tried to make the journey, Alexander had the aforementioned fleet as well. In a way, this was probably a "two birds with one stone" opportunity for him: avoid a logistical difficulty (doubling back through lands that Engels says wouldn't have been able to support upwards of 100,000 people and their animals again so soon) while also adding a feather to his cap--much needed after being forced to turn around at India. Still a second prize compared to reaching Ocean's shores... but better than no prize at all.

To be fair also, even if Engels' theory is correct it doesn't change the events and I have a difficult time comprehending the trek through Gedrosia as a "victory" of any kind as Aleksandros has stated.

And Gedrosia was not a debacle but one of Alexander's most glorious victories.

Alexander may well have viewed the crossing as a heroic feat, but the way his men died was hardly victorious or glorious in the heroic mold. Arrian's version (6.25.3) tells how "some were left behind on the roads from sickness, others from weariness or heat or inability to hold out against thirst; there was no one to help them forward, and no one to stay behind and take care of them ... ... few out of many were saved: most of them were lost in the sand, like men who fall overboard at sea." Alexander may have seen the completion of the trek as a "feather in his cap", but I see the march as a great tragedy and I suspect his men thought so too, despite the panacea of a week-long drunken revel at its conclusion. They had certainly lost some of their trust in him as is evidenced by their overwhelming reluctance to take advantage of his offer to pay their debts upon their return to the west.

But once again, it's all down to personal views … which brings me to:

And for all the negative stuff that comes out of Paralus Mouth I just dont understand why you still read and study and again criticize some one you clearly have a problem.

There’s no rule that members must like or must not criticize Alexander. It would be a very boring place if only people who sang his praises were to post here. There's also no reason why someone should not read or write about Alexander even when they are critical of him - or any other historical person for that matter.

Best regards,

[Paralus]

you have a completely different approach on Alexander's administration.
If you were less irrelevant to the subject i d try and debate some more with you.
I dont mean to offend you as i believe i can learn things from anyone.

Far from offended, far from it.

That last sentence is made a mockery of by your outright dismissal (as somehow irrelevant) of my logical (rather than emotional) attempts to put the Indian ‘conquest” and subsequent revolts into some perspective.

I’m afraid though that constructive argument is wasted here. Once a large scale rebellion of Indian provinces is dismissed via the convenient fact that an army of 30,000 is not mentioned, all is irrelevant. It does not pay to come between ardent fans and their idols.

I'm certain that Alexander viewed challenge of crossing Gedrosia as a heroic feat, but I doubt he was suicidal. Unlike the previous monarchs who tried to make the journey, Alexander had the aforementioned fleet as well. In a way, this was probably a "two birds with one stone" opportunity for him: avoid a logistical difficulty (doubling back through lands that Engels says wouldn't have been able to support upwards of 100,000 people and their animals again so soon) while also adding a feather to his cap--much needed after being forced to turn around at India. Still a second prize compared to reaching Ocean's shores... but better than no prize at all.

In the begininig, yes. He left some 6,000 national troops as well as mercenaries with the regent.

Was it that few? I just remember Arrian's account, that he left him with 12,000 infantry and 1,500 or so cavalry--curiously similar to Alexander's own "core" Macedonian contingent in terms of numbers.

I know Antipater later had to send reinforcements to Alexander... but I thought those were new recruits, as opposed to the existing formations.

Amyntoros has addressed the Engels’ view. I’d only add that I still see the crossing as unnecessary. That Alexander split the army shows, to me, that he knew what lay ahead and was well aware of the enormous difficulty of the undertaking, he might easily have “pacified” the delta, garrisoned it and returned the same way he sent Craterus. In the end, the fleet largely took care of itself. As I say, a commander’s first duty is to his troops. Undertaking this march so as to score a “glorious” victory that had eluded others is a gross negligence of that duty.

The 6,000 are active service numbers based upon a re-reading of Diodorus’ figures. Others will have been at home but not in active service. Given the reserves sent east (almost none of whom, including the original army of the Hellespont, ever came home for good), Antipater was severely limited in what numbers he could raise given the gravest threat to Macedonian power since the coalition at Chaeronea.

[aleksandros]

this guy is something

i ll try and say it once more.

1. Alexander never turned back.
2. Whatever he conquered remained under his rule until he died.

as for the rebellions they are not part of my point. Alexander made sure that the guys he left behind could make things right if something happened.
Carthaginians didnt attack him when he was in Sogdia, Scythians didnt attack him when he was invading India, Indians did not attack him when he was in Susa.
And by attack i mean an army that would have made Alexander to get his 50.000 hommies and go engage the threat.

That was my point and thats what the question was meant for.

Alexander didnt leave a powerful garrison in Egypt nor he attacked Carthage... so something made him sure that they wouldnt attack. But why?? Thats what we were debating about until you broke in and had the convo executed.

[Paralus]

this guy is something.

You're right there: no argument.

i ll try and say it once more.

1. Alexander never turned back.

Might I suggest you read the extant source material? Seems you've skipped a few chapters.

Alexander didnt leave a powerful garrison in Egypt nor he attacked Carthage... so something made him sure that they wouldnt attack. But why?? Thats what we were debating about until you broke in and had the convo executed.

That was not the original question. The original question, the original, simple question was:

Why didnt Alexander attack Carthage when in Egypt? Was he in a hurry or Carthaginians sent envoys to assure they ll cause him no trouble?

The answer to which the answer was:

He had unfinished business awaiting him in the heart of the Persian Empire.

Not to make too much of a rather irrelevant question but, it might be added, Carthage had shown about as much interest in Egypt as a vegetarian in a pork chop. What Alexander did with Egypt mattered little to Carthage. What Alexander did with the Levant mattered little. Carthage had shown a distinct disinterest in Phoenicia as it fell under the Achaemenids because its sphere of interest was to its west, north and Sicily. As long as the trade continued from that region, que sera sera.