Alexander the Great: West instead of East

Newbie here, I have a question, if Alexander the Great went west instead of east against the Persians, how well do you think his armies would do against against the Romans pre Marius armies, early Carthage, Latin people, Samnites, Ligurians, Gauls, Iberians, Numidians, Geremans, etc. Thanks for any response.

Yeah I�ve been reading about Roman history lately and visited other history forums and they said that it was Julius Caesars tactical strategy, loyalty from his men, and the infighting going on among Gallic tribes was he able to conquer Gaul and bring them to Roman hegemony. They said Gaul was no easy task. BTW, if there are mods here, you can move this to "historical amusement" thread. Sorry, I�m new here and my thread seems like it should go there for "what if" scenario.

I think also that the uneven terrain of Italy would not have accomodated the Phalanx very well.  Actually, I think Bactria would have been much worse in that respect, but what resistance could there have been there? when Alexander arrived

But it is very difficult to imagine Alexander going West instead, since it would be contrary to all of his goals and aspirations. 

Of course, Alexander's army was not designed to fight Gauls and Italians, and im sure if he had directed his attention elsewhere he could have adapted to any differences, though it was his father who really reformed the Macedonian army in the first place.

I don't think he would have been less successful on the battle field if he had indeed gone in the direction of western Europe, though troop morale may have been lower.

Carthage would, however, be a major problem and disrupt Macedonian supply lines and communications with their navy. 

Edited by Faran

And Pyrrhus did a great deal with the Phalanx in Italy as well, however, those battles were centered in Magna Graecia, or southern Italy, where Italy forms into a coastal plain.  For a full out conquest of Italy Alexander would have had to venture into the Appenines, where he would have to fight the Romans in drawn out battles, since the Romans are famous for loosing over a hundred thousand men in several battles and then come out with another eighty thousand the next year.

On the topic: I believe Alexander had layed down plans - he would conquer the Arabic tribes and then move on to the West, to the Italian peninsula and Carthage. He would steamroll Italy much in the same way he did in the East - his phalangites were more than accustomed to fighting guerilla warfare (see Bactria, Sogdiana etc.) and in pitched battles no army was a match for them and their leaders genius.

On Lannes. Pyrrhos was a sloppy tactician? I believe he trashed the Roman army (and the Carthagenians) in each and every encounter they had - but unlike his relative Alexandros the Great, he wasn't a genius tactician (visible especially in his inability to preserve his core army, thous suffering substantial losses in each battle) and lacked especially in political aspects (his rough ways have intimidated the Greeks of Italy, those who brought him in and financed him in the first place) and lacking support and ways to replenish his troops (half of his starting troops were a "loan" from the King of Macedonia, for instance) he had to withdraw Italy.

But I wouldn't call him "sloppy". He was a very good tactician, albeit not a great strategist (again, unlike Alexandros).

i think it would have been more difficult had he gone west.  the conquering and battles would have certainly been easier, but it would have been impossible to consolidate his lands like he did in the east.  all Alexander basically did was conquer the Persian empire, and extended the borders slightly.  the people had lived under an empire for quite some time, and the basic infastructure for maintaining an empire were already in place.  alexander just replaced the persians as the leader of this land.

however, if he had gone west, he would have had to fight numerous tribes and smaller kingdoms.  while the conquering would not be difficult, establishing effective rule would be close to impossible.  the "barbarian" people could not easily be brought under his rule, and he would have had to fight many more wars with the many people.  however, maybe if he had gone west he wouldnt have caught his illness and died, so he might have had a lot longer to do what he had to do!

Originally posted by Connecticut Yankee Why would Alexander go West when the wealth was in the East? How was he to gain glory in conquering North Africa, Italia, Iberia and Cetic lands? Also, the direction of the Aegean world faced East, not West.

Well, this is a what if question, conjured on stipulation.  But, showing from Celtic and early Latin jewelry the west was quite wealthy, Alexander just didn't know much about it... but, he could have gone west on a mere whim?  Again, as was stated above (I believe 1st or 2nd reply), it's said that Alexander did plan on campaigns west - moving into the Arabian Peninsula, then skimming North Africa, and then going somewhere from there.

as far as i know he was planning to conquer Arabia and move to Europe but he died before completing his dreams

so going west was his next plan and it  would be stupid to go west first and leave the east which contain the largest empire in the world to take Greece while he is wondering in the west.

i think he was cursed because he thought of conquering Arabia