why Alexander the great want to come in east part of Asia only ?
Answers
Answer:
When assessing the acts of a famous conqueror like Alexander, it's tempting to look at him as if he existed in a vaccuum. We can say, look, there he is in Macedon; here's a whole rich fertile landmass that he's already on, that he can easily overrun, that later became the core of several large empires. He's got the finest army in the world and there's no major European power to stand in his way. Why would he choose to turn east instead, and cross the sea and a bunch of mountains and deserts and take on the largest empire in existence?
But if we did this, we would be ignoring the world in which Alexander lived, and the legacy of his father, Philip II.
First of all, the Greek world was centred around the Mediterranean, more than any continental landmass. All Greek traders, mercenaries, settlers and armies that had ever gone anywhere had always done so along the coasts and nearby inland areas of this great sea, which allowed for quick and easy travel. Any power that made its presence known on the sea was familiar to the Greeks, but any that dwelled inland was essentially irrelevant to them. At the time of Alexander, the Greeks had settlements all over the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, but they had only a vague notion of the peoples of inland Europe. As far as they were concerned, the lands north of those inhabited by the Thracians and Illyrians of the Balkans were cold, dark, inhospitable places with very little to offer. Expansionist Greeks were much more likely to turn their gaze west or east.
Indeed, in terms of returns on investment, attacking north-northwest into Europe would have been a rather senseless proposition. The wealthiest parts of the world were not the rainswept lands of the Getai in Romania or the little plains of local wranglers like the upstart city of Rome. They were, in the west, Sicily and Carthage, and in the east, Ionia (on the west coast of modern Turkey) and Egypt. These were prizes worth having.
In terms of political justifications, there was certainly reason enough to turn west and attack Carthage. The Carthaginians had been openly hostile to the Greeks in Sicily for a century and a half, and had periodically subjected large swathes of the island to their rule. However, as a target for a Macedonian conqueror, they were less attractive for three reasons. First, the fiercely independent and powerful Greek cities of Southern Italy and Sicily would not gladly submit to Macedonian overlordship, even if it meant freedom from Carthage. Second, these very cities had only recently (in 339/8 BC) defeated the Carthaginians on Sicily and pushed them back to a couple of tiny footholds, regaining freedom and democratic constitutions for themselves. Third, Carthage was a naval power, and to challenge them would require substantial investment in a large, state-of-the-art fleet that would have to operate far from the Macedonian homeland. This matched neither the style nor the scale of Alexander's ambitions.