Why was he so obsessed conquering literal shitholes in the far east? If he had marched west after defeating Persia, Macedonia would've lasted a thousand years. The Mediterranian was the real key to being a super power, not some useless deserts and elephants.
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
The side with more iron wins every war. Celts gave him iron and he had to advance south because he was too weak to do anything else.
Persia was like giga rich and MENA wasnt a desert back then
It look more like southern europe
he was a compensating manlet
This is the stupidest thing I've read here all day.
>Yuh bro I'm just going to go fight uber tribal Italy and the Carthaginians
It took the Romans, with more manpower and unending yearly wars decades to subjugate Iberia for good. Alexander would just not live long enough to bring Italy to heel
Yeah well tribal socities are realy hard to conquor. When you fight a organized society,you kill the leaders and install your own. In tribal socities there is no centralized power to take over.
Yes they did very well against the Romans in Gaul
Italy was mostly urbanized by then
>Italy was mostly urbanized by then
As far as we know, by the time Alexander was alive Rome had just exited its stage of tribalism, the majority of Central Italy still had not. Let alone Northern or parts of Southern Italy. Neither does Urban settlements mean they are not tribal.
Italy was urbanized , but that was the Etruscan coast and Magna Grecia, which grew and lived through its access thanks thanks to the Greek city states. The Latins were indeed more insular, entirely agricultural and more prone to war over tribute and territory.
>by the time Alexander was alive Rome had just exited its stage of tribalism
No, it didn't, read a book you fricking illiterate moron, Rome was already a huge city by the mid 6th century bc (by ancient standards, at least), Alexander's wars took place in the late 4th century bc, over two centuries later
> the majority of Central Italy still had not
Most of Centraly Italy was Etruscan, and the Etruscans urbanized slightly BEFORE Rome on average, so NO.
>No, it didn't, read a book you fricking illiterate moron, Rome was already a huge city by the mid 6th century bc
I did actually. It's called War and Society in Early Rome: From Warlords to Generals. Rome and the Latins were tribal near the end of the 4th century. Neither does urbanisation imply that they are not tribal. Especially beforehand, when we don't even know if there was such thing as a Roman identity.
>Most of Centraly Italy was Etruscan
No? There were plenty of other people in Central Italy, the Sabines, the Marsi, Opici, Samnites, Lucani and so on. The Etruscans were simply one of the more major ones. And we don't even know enough about the Etruscans to say that they weren't tribal.
Both Romans and Etruscans lived IN cities , this is a fact moron
>Both Romans and Etruscans lived IN cities
Urbanism =/= Not tribal
moron. State societies are NOT tribal, you can say there were TRIBES but they weren't tribal, just like there were GREEK TRIBES and even PERSIAN TRIBES
Confirmed for not knowing shit about anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_tribe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_Greek_tribes
You can't even read a post, poor abortion
Yet you're completely unable to post any significant art that can even be remotely compared to Etruscan art from pre-Alexandrian India
I don't give a frick about India or your Minoan copied artwork. What you're posting isn't impressive at all and you have no clue what you are talking about. Why should I care about street shitters? How is that relevent?
>What you're posting isn't impressive at all and you have no clue what you are talking about
Says the moron who thinks that giant terracotta statues are "Minoan artwork" while the Minoans produced zero life size terracotta statues, only small statuettes. The influence on Etruscan artwork was Greek, (certainly not Minoan), nobody denies that, but that doesn't diminish it because they still made it distinctive and produced incredible artworks with their own touch
>Why should I care about street shitters? How is that relevent?
It's the whole argument of OP, why Alexander went East AFTER Persia instead of West, moron, not my problem if you can't read
India was much wealthier it isn't rocket science moron. You keep showing the most primitve autistic shit that doesn't even hold a candle to 2000BC Egypt
Not a single thing you posted is remotely impressive for the time period
Lol you already proven to be moronic I've never expected anything from you and in fact you've not been able to post anything even remotely impressive from pre-Alexander era India, so you lost the argument a long time ago and just jeep wining LMAO
You're a moron, it honestly give me so much happiness to know there's someone who's both as weak and moronic as you in the world, like a bug who can't sting, you're so pathetic, like a human fly to squish, fricking moron
this seems really important to you, no need to get worked up anon. Your shitty unimpressive art can only help you cope so far.
Why are street shitters living rent free in your brain?
Primitive my ass
While the presence of some Etruscan artifacts in Greece does not prove they were heavily
imported, there is textual evidence that suggests this was the case. In his work the
Deipnosophistae, Athenaeus of Naucratis quotes the famous 5 th century BC Athenian tyrant
Critias as saying, “the Etruscan cup of beaten gold is the best, as well as all bronze that adorns
the house…”.
6 From this reference we can infer that the Athenians were well acquainted with
Etruscan bronzes and even decorated their homes with them. Other references in Greek literature
suggest that the Etruscans were best known for their bronze trumpets.
Etruscans were appreciated by both ancient Greeks and modern scholars, the fact that your moronic ass keeps wining is the equivalent of a 3 year old child disliking spiny lobsters, caviar or good wine because he hasn't developed a refined taste yet, unfortunately unlike the child you have zero chance of developing it because you're a mentally challenged wewuzkanger
Why are you crying so hard when faced with the fact nobody cares about your primitive shit?
Not even Alexander gave a frick, what do you want me to tell you? Nobody cares about your favorite shithole not worth conquering.
The fact Alexander saw india more worthy really upsets you anon. Why?
Go back to watching Pokemon, manchild. You're completely clueless about everything.
You're here denying history and throwing a tantrum over Alexander the Great's decisions over 2000 years later.
Just stop dude its really embarrassing
kek your only knowledge is one book?
>not an argument
> State societies are NOT tribal,
Early Rome wasn't a state society. An entire portion of their society based their power on landholding clans which levied soldiers in their own lands divorced from urban settlements and people. Neither was this Patrician class anything like the later defunct clans which existed as voting blocks that existed from the Middle Republic onwards. They were fundamentally tribal and shared more in common with Gallic tribes than they did the Middle Republic.
It is an argument, if your only knowledge is from one book from a single modern historian you don't know shit and have no room to speak, especially with so much evidence to the contrary
>if your only knowledge is from one book from a single modern historian you don't know shit and have no room to speak
Supposedly your only source is wikipedia.
>especially with so much evidence to the contrary
Why don't you provide it?
You claim Rome was in a tribal state in the Alexander era when they were really just an Etruscan citystate
>You claim Rome was in a tribal state in the Alexander era
Yes
>when they were really just an Etruscan citystate
They were Latins but whatever.
They clearly weren't tribal, when you say "tribal" that implies the Northern european sense. Swallow your pride and stop being autistic
Do you also believe that all of Gaul and lower Britain was not tribal because they had urbanism and collected their soldiers through clans? If not you just have a weird idea of Roman exceptionalism that despite Early Rome functionally being the exact same as their Gallic neighbours, they weren’t tribal, just cause?
You misunderstand I am in no way a Romeaboo, conflating Alexander era Rome with real tribes like in Britain just is moronic to me
You're moronic. According to your argument most states in Europe until a few centuries ago weren't states, because Lords levied their troops
Rome was a city-state governed by a senate and two consuls, the society was highly stratified, the city exported its products en mass (roof tiles since the 6th century bc for temples all over Italy), so it wasn't tribal by definition, end of story.
>Rome was already a huge city by the mid 6th century bc (by ancient standards, at least),
romehomosexual cope
This was made almost 200 years before Alexander's campaigns
I'm waiting for something similar from India..
So primitive... can't compete with pre-alexander Indians...
Do we have any solid history on tribal rome, and pre greek Brittania?
By narrative history, Livy I guess. But not even the Romans had access to sources which actually told anything much about early Rome, they didn't even understand the nature of early Roman society and the narrative we know is basically built around military details, since that is the information they had. For early Rome I read
>War and Society in Early Rome: From Warlords to Generals
It was pretty good. The gist of it is that one, the Late Republican writers fundamentally did not understand Early Roman culture and are highly unreliable to downright useless when it came to social history. Plebeians and Patricians were initially, not two classes but two different societies of people which happened to share a common region and culture. This should go without saying, but the Romans were the same as the Latin people, we don't even know if there was a distinct Roman identity until the end of the 4th century.
>nooo stop conquering rich kingdoms along trade routes, turn around and try to conquer wilderness, because uh...
>literal shitholes in the far east
Indus and mesopotamia paid the highest tribute?
India alone paid a third of the total tribute, that too in pure gold
That’s actually insane considering how little of India they got. It really was insanely wealthy back in the day huh.
India had massive armies that would swallow Alexander and spit him out. Even a great general can't beat armies that outnumber him 10 to 1.
Clive from the East India Company would like a word with you.
You don't fight all the armies at once. You ally with some, hire sepoys from others and you loot the sh!t out of the richest ones left.
that doesn't count
westoids had guns, indians didn't
Too add to this post , Alexander was trying to map all the major sea routes of the "outer sea". Ancient Greeks had the belief that the world was encircled by an out sea, and Alexander figured he could use it to maintain communications with the far points of the empire. He was weirdly right, since India to Mesopotamia is a pretty short jounrey by boat (assuming the winds are alright) compared to the overland route. The Achaemenids had mostly neglected naval infrastructure. With good ports at the mouth of the Indus, Mesopotamia, on the Red Sea, Nile Delta, in Syria, and Greece suddenly managing the whole empire becomes a lot easier. Sure enough next on the chopping block was Arabia, since he wanted to control the trade there and discover/control the extent of the sea routes between Egypt and India.
Still can't decide if Alexander was Giga Chad conquerer or just an obsessed autist.
Giga Chad autist obsessed with conquering?
>AAAAHHH I'M COONQUERING
I would hazard a guess that virtually all of the top-tier generals of the past were autistic. Napoleon in particular is on record for having really weird social issues and quirks that you'd expect from an autist, like freaking out and making a scene if he felt textures he didn't like.
Hannibal seemed like a reasonable level-headed guy.
an autist about conquering that was momma's boy and inherited his daddy's army
almost every other great conquerer is greater than him, objectively if not looking from the westoid perspective
what moron told you this? why didn't any of Persia's other enemies conquer them?
You can say the same for every leader that they "inherited" their army
He was obsessed with achieving glory. He marched his army through the Gedrosian desert simply because nobody had done it before (with good reason). His soldiers used to beg him to stop fighting from the frontlines.
>literal shitholes in the far east?
moron the East was the civilized world at that time, there wasnt anything worth conquering west. rome was a shithole.
he was actually planning on going west before he died. but of course going east was the main objective. thats where civilization was.
What a shame his successors were shortsighted evil backstabbers.
I thought Arabia was next
The west was still literal spearchucker Stone Age savages when Alexander set out to conquer the world. The east was where all the actual civilization building was happening
I'm sure that was a comforting thought for the inhabitants of Persepolis when drunken spearchuckers were burning it to the ground
No it wasn’t
Pyrrhus tried that, it didn't go so well for him
How long do you think he tortured the first soldier that came up with the pyrrhic victory line
Unironically, he was autistic.
Owning the entire silk road has been the no.1 goal of every single major eurasian empire since Alexander came up with that idea.
Rome, Sassanids, Abbasids, Mongols, Ottomans, British they all attempted the same thing because in geo-political terms you own and control the eurasian landbridge. Owning the entire medditerenean was not even a thing because trade there was secondary in terms of cash flows in comparison to the production of goods that was happening in India and China since antiquity. Trade in the mediterranean was not even that profitable, untill the time it was basically monopolized by Italian city states like Venice and Genoa during the european renaissance.
The real shitholes were in the West of Greece. The East was where the wealth was at, where trade & riches flowed through the Silk Road/Spice Road. Also since Glory made much of Alexander's objectives, it was the east where glory lay. The East was where the big Empires, and wealthy city states was at, who were all worthy opponents for Alexander's Homeric quest.
West of the Mediterranean was nothing but itty-bitty Celtic tribes, Italic Cities, and the Carthage, which lived off trade coming from the east anyway. It was not a sexy, glamorous place to go a-conquering When Alexander was young
and assigned by his dad to pacify Illyria he b***hed and moaned about being stuck there forever fighting shitty Thracian & Celtic tribes.
How fricking stupid are you? Besides Carthage and maybe Sicily, there was nothing of any worth west of Greece, and there wouldn't be for a few more hundreds of years. And even the wealth of Carthage was literally nothing compared to the Persian Empire and India.
>there was nothing of any worth west of Greece
Copium
Is that supposed to be impressive? It looks like fricking Minoan frescoes, except 2000 years late lmao
Post something more impressive from Indians who lived during Alexander's time, moron
>carefully avoiding any mention of Persia not to get instantly BTFO
Kek
>Muh Persia
Etruscan art is more impressive, and OP's question is about why Alexander went further East AFTER defeating Persia, anyway
So primitive...
Everything you posted is extremely primitive, do you have no concept of history? This shit would have been impressive in 2000BC maybe not in fricking 300BC
>omg some paintings!!
If Alexander wanted art, he could have just stayed in Greece instead of looking at some subpar copy of Greek art. The Etruscans were nothing but piss-poor Greek larpers. The money was in the East.
There wasn't much west at the time. Rome was a glorified barn, Syracuse and Carthage were quite powerful and separated from the Greek mainland by long distances at sea lending to unpredictable risks as the Athenians discovered during their Sicilian expedition.
This would change within a century. 40 years after his death Rome's activities would bring the attention of Pyrrhus, 60 years and they were an organized state beginning their saga against Carthage, however this is a long time. If you were 10 when Alexander died you'd be 70 by the Punic war.
> Rome was a glorified barn
Repeating this lie ad infinitum won't make it true, Carthage and Rome had a treaty that divided the Mediterranean in their respective spheres of influence since 509 BC
he wanted to reach the edge of the world.
how edgy
?t=491
India was literally swimming in gold and gems. The Western Mediterranean was quite literally worthless, it was just a significantly inferior version of the Eastern Mediterranean.
>India was literally swimming in gold and gems.
*figuratively
Because he loved Persian culture more than Greek, and persian women more. He was a sinophile
India was the farthest East the Greeks know about.
Alexander wanted to go beyond India to reach the ends of the world.
he was an explorer too.
China and India have been richer and more developed than the West throughout all human history, up until the Industrial Revolution.
Even then, industrial Englishmen had to drug everybody up with opium to stand a chance against the Chinese.
kek Europe was dogshit, the east had the world’s strongest superpower that had been the enemy of Greece for the past 100 years