Alexander the Great...Not Great in Africa?

Originally posted by Fula I've heard the reason why Alexander didnt go into the Interior of Africa was becuase these Nubian Candace Queens "scared"  him off with their huge army. Anybody know any scholarly info on this? Ive tried to look but it only seems Afro-centrist make this claim...

As far as I'm concerned Afro-centrists make a lot of vain claims for which they have no proof. Alexander 'scared' just doesn't seem to fit into his persona as both an adventurer and ambitious leader. As a matter of fact, Alexander was proclaimed as the son of Ammon in Siwah and it would be far-fetched for someone who just make a bold claim of divinity to then state or allow others to infer that he was in any way intimidated.

I guess we can still wonder if he did actually have a future plan to explore Nubia the same way he wanted to go to Arabia. It would make sense to ask why he didn't go further than upper Egypt, he must have wondered what lied beyond the nile. I think that he was too hard-pressed to go after Darius. He didn't wish to lose momentum after the victory at Issus.

Originally posted by Baal Melqart Originally posted by Fula I've heard the reason why Alexander didnt go into the Interior of Africa was becuase these Nubian Candace Queens "scared"  him off with their huge army. Anybody know any scholarly info on this? Ive tried to look but it only seems Afro-centrist make this claim... As far as I'm concerned Afro-centrists make a lot of vain claims for which they have no proof. Alexander 'scared' just doesn't seem to fit into his persona as both an adventurer and ambitious leader. As a matter of fact, Alexander was proclaimed as the son of Ammon in Siwah and it would be far-fetched for someone who just make a bold claim of divinity to then state or allow others to infer that he was in any way intimidated. I guess we can still wonder if he did actually have a future plan to explore Nubia the same way he wanted to go to Arabia. It would make sense to ask why he didn't go further than upper Egypt, he must have wondered what lied beyond the nile. I think that he was too hard-pressed to go after Darius. He didn't wish to lose momentum after the victory at Issus.

Thanks your answer makes a lot of sense....I thought it was interesting that he didnt go any further south. At the same time apparently the Greeks spoke well of the Candace Queens of Nubia

Hi Fula,

Originally posted by okamido Hi Fula,   The encounter with Candace of Meore is a part of the Alexander romance, and should not be considered as part of any true history. Just tall tales, that is all.

Originally posted by lirelou The real question is: What would there have been in Africa south of Egypt at the time that Alexander would have wanted? It's not like he was on some exploratory jaunt. He had an Army that had to be clothed, fed, and given a share of the spoils. No spoils would equal an unruly Army. Also, how would the Greek public have viewed the conquest of some remote African kingdom, versus the conquest of kingdoms and empires that were more likely to threaten Greece i some future. Asia's riches were known, and much of Africa's that the Greeks would have wanted were likely available through Egypt. There may well have been great kingdoms in Africa, but Asia was definitely the land of better prospects in Alexander's time.

Understood but it still doesn't mean that he wouldn't have invaded once his campaign in Asia was over. Hell, if the mutiny after Gedrosia is proof of anything, it shows that Alexander didn't care about his unruly lot. He wanted to see what was beyond West India and would have if he had his way. How did the Greeks view his conquest of India, didn't stop him from doing what Alexander always did, venture.

Secondly you are terribly mistaken about Nubia. It was a land so rich in minerals, especially gold and silver, so much that the generally 'peaceful' Egyptians conquered their Nubian neighbours during the Middle Kingdom.

Originally posted by lirelou Whatever Nubia was up until 1640 BC, wasn't necessarily what it was in 300BC. Potosi in Upper Peru was the world's richest silver mine in the 17th Century, but by the 19th Century Potosi's mine had been largely worked out of silver, though tin extraction continued. Potosi continues to produce silver today, but hardly in the quantities of the 16th and 17th Centuries. Taxco, Mexico, has a similar history. So the fact that more than 1,300 years earlier Nubian mines were incredibly rich does not establish that such was the case in Alexander's time. It would seem that if they were, Alexander would have put it on his list, unless he could obtain all he needed through the Egyptians, or equally likely, the known Nubian mines of antiquity had played out.  If you have concrete evidence to the contrary, it would be of interest. Not sure how the term 'normally peaceful' applies to any empire, much less the Egyptians of before 1640 BC.

Unfortunately I can't prove that at the moment. There is very little mention of Nubian gold after the Egyptian conquest. I guess you might be right, it makes sense that after thousands of years that the deposits of gold ore would be somewhat depleted.

I'm just saying, it doesn't seem to me that Alexander was the kind of fellow who goes after nothing but war spoils and gold. We don't know if he had any future interest in conquering Nubia which he may or may have not shared with his companions. I'd like to think that he would have at least sent scouts to report to him on what the land was like.

I do have a problem with people saying that he conquered the world. This obsession popular culture has for the Greeks promoted this lie. If anything it was Genghis Khan (Temujin) Who conquered the world. His Empire was ten times bigger...It made Alexander's look like child's play 

Fula,Egyptians had ruled the ancient Med sea world long time.They controlled three points:Egypt,Asia Minor
and Mediterranean coastal areas.But this does not means they did not enter continental Europe and Asia also.Most of the time,Persia and Egypt were in war.Control of those territories had changed according to written document from Egyptians to Persians and vice versa.This is my point of view of course.

Originally posted by Fula Originally posted by Baal Melqart Originally posted by Fula I do have a problem with people saying that he conquered the world. This obsession popular culture has for the Greeks promoted this lie. If anything it was Genghis Khan (Temujin) Who conquered the world. His Empire was ten times bigger...It made Alexander's look like child's play  Those people usually speak of the known world, or to put it in perspective, the civilised world.   I hear ya I do, But even based own those definitions... still no where near. Not taking anything away from the guy he did some incredible stuff. I guess it bothers me becuase we tend to only highlight certain history and ignore others. History is very important to the psyche of people and things that are exaggerated, falsified, or ignored has its affect on people. I teach at a predominantly African-American school and the history they know about Africa is sad. All they know is Dark Continent, No civiliations, Slavery, and Martin Luther King Jr...this in turn affects how they view of themselves and how they act. I see it all the time

I won't lie to you but beyond Nubia and Kush, I know of no Sub-Saharan civilisation that ever came to prominence. There must have been yet as you said the focus is not on African civilisations.


Edited by Baal Melqart - 22-Dec-2011 at 11:43

Perhaps Africa had no 'great civilizations' in the sense that they influenced peoples far beyond their borders.  Perhaps the greatest contribution to the world, to date, has been African-Americans, whose contributions to Western culture and civilization are obvious and undeniable in literature, music, the arts, and human rights, just to mention a few fields.