The Invisible Enemy: How the World Was Conquered Without War Series (IV)

The East outsmarted Alexander the Great

When Western eyes fixated on Alexander the Great’s extraordinary conquests half a world away, China quietly wrote a chapter that would reshape history. While Alexander raced across continents, toppling empires and building a legacy of broken cities and merged cultures, the Warring States of China was constructing a behemoth that would rise, endure, and dominate the narrative of the East for centuries.

This is not a tale of parallels but a story of contrasts. Alexander’s swift, brutal campaigns unified the West in chaos (East of Rome). Meanwhile, China consolidated power through calculated reforms, relentless territorial expansion, and a wise balance between philosophy and cold bureaucracy. What was the East silently constructing while Alexander’s shining Macedonian shield captured all the light? The ancient world had seen the most vigorous state—and its eyes were firmly watching the West.

Key Driver of Alexander the Great Conquests

Unlike Persia, Rome had no historical enmity with Greece or Macedonia. Alexander’s conquests were partly driven by the need to avenge Persian invasions of Greece, a narrative that did not apply to Rome. In essence, he was “following the money” of those who funded Greece’s collapse.

When I study anything in life, I always ask WHY? What is the motivation behind an action? Why did plants migrate from water to land? I studied that and found an answer, yet I didn’t submit it to a journal, as notoriety was not my goal. It was personal. The same applies when I was learning about war strategies in my previous career and through my fascination. Why did Alexander the Great go East?

Many will tell you it was revenge on the Persians, which is very evident, but it wasn’t the Persians. Alexander the Great was after Tissaphernes and Pharnabazus, who were the key to the source of Greece’s demise. Alexander married the family of those who aided it, discovered the mastermind through that, and retreated. Tissaphernes and Pharnabazus are rarely mentioned persons who were the ultimate connection to the source that FUNDED the wars in Greece, which led to its demise.

Following the money” is a timeless principle that reveals the roots of an operation, whether in business, politics, or clandestine activities. Cash flows purposefully, leaving trails that expose intentions, connections, and agendas. It is often the most reliable witness, silent yet revealing.

In investigations, following financial trails can unmask hidden networks, identify key players, and reveal the objectives behind decisions or events. Whether unraveling corruption, understanding power structures, or uncovering covert operations, money always tells a story.

So, when seeking truth, let the currency flow—its origins and destinations—be your guide. It rarely lies.

A Tale of Two Frontiers

Between 356 BCE and 323 BCE, the world experienced extraordinary transformations. Alexander the Great exemplified military genius and ambition on one end of the globe, reshaping the Hellenistic world with unmatched speed. Conversely, the Warring States of China were tearing apart and rebuilding themselves, setting the stage for their eventual unification under the Qin—a lasting empire that would influence governance worldwide.

Unlike Alexander’s alleged audacious momentum, China’s approach was deliberate and systemic. Its evolution wasn’t a spectacle but a calculated ascent—a transformation driven by internal reorganization, philosophical debate, and technological innovation.

A critical question overlooked in historical discourse is whether Alexander the Great and ancient China were aware of each other. How might such awareness have influenced their respective decisions and trajectories if such awareness existed? I contend, with confidence, that they were indeed aware of one another. Yet, historians have not thoroughly analyzed or published this pivotal question. Is this omission a deliberate choice or merely an oversight? Addressing this gap compels us to reconsider the interconnectedness of these two historical giants—and, in doing so, perhaps unveil what it truly means to play the long game on the grand stage of history.

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

Sun Tzu

Provencial Governors and Generals Are Most Common Usurpers

Throughout history, this has been a recurring theme: empires rising and falling, nations appearing and vanishing, and others enduring transformations over time. Ultimately, their downfall often hinged on their governors and generals.

A good example is that it was a singular Greek general, Alcibiades, whose machinations catalyzed the downfall of the Greek Empire, though Demosthenes also played a pivotal role in the process too. These events unfolded under the strategic guidance of Tissaphernes and Pharnabazus, satraps of the Persian Empire, who deftly manipulated the conflict by financially sustaining both Athens and Sparta—antagonists locked in the protracted Peloponnesian War. The funding, according to both legend and historical analysis, originated from a distant yet significant locus of commerce: the Indus Valley. This affluent region, critical as a trade nexus, funneled its wealth via Sogdiana at the behest of an enigmatic woman of immense wealth, shrouded in myth. This very corridor of exchange would later underpin the infrastructure of the Silk Road, solidifying its stature as the economic artery of the ancient East.

In the West, leaders such as kings, queens, emperors, and pharaohs were often killed to mark the end of their reigns. In contrast, the East preferred a subtler approach—controlling rulers like puppets to save face while manipulating the succession to suit their agendas.

In the East, young leaders were often chosen as successors to the throne, enabling empresses or dowager empresses to wield significant influence and effectively control the empire from behind the scenes. This strategic manipulation ensured that real power remained in the hands of those experienced in court politics.

A prime example of this is Empress Dowager Cixi of the Qing Dynasty. After the death of Emperor Xianfeng, she installed her young son, Tongzhi, as emperor, positioning herself as the regent. Even after his death, she continued to dominate the imperial court by selecting her three-year-old nephew, Guangxu, as the next emperor. By keeping the throne occupied by young and inexperienced rulers, Cixi maintained unrivaled authority, steering the empire through a period of internal and external turmoil, all while projecting the illusion of traditional monarchical continuity.

Alexander the Great’s Eastward Campaigns: A Strategic Move to Secure the West

Historical analysis suggests that Alexander the Great’s ventures into the Indus Valley and adjacent regions were not mere displays of imperial ambition. Instead, they may have been strategic surgical strikes aimed at dismantling the economic lifelines funding these disruptions.

Alexander’s conquests weren’t random conquests of distant lands with mysterious allure. They were calculated moves deeply rooted in a need to secure Hellenic dominance by ensuring no force—Persian, Orient, or otherwise—could disrupt his burgeoning empire.

When Alexander the Great crossed the Hindu Kush and entered the Indus Valley (modern-day Pakistan) in 327 BCE, his motivations extended far beyond empire expansion. Behind the glamorous façade of extending his dominion lay a methodical and urgent mission to sever a critical artery funding resistance against Western rulers, including himself.

Having secured Bactria and Sogdiana—regions encompassing modern Afghanistan and parts of Central Asia—Alexander advanced through the imposing Khyber Pass into the affluent yet politically fractured Indus Valley. This richly endowed region, governed by rulers such as Ambhi of Taxila and Porus of Punjab, presented both immense opportunities and formidable challenges due to its vast wealth and strategic importance.

The Indus Valley was no ordinary conquest. Its agricultural abundance, rich deposits of metals, and thriving trade networks had long been a keystone of the Persian Empire’s economic power, making it a crucial acquisition for any ruler seeking regional supremacy. Control of the valley’s strategically positioned trade routes, which extended from Central Asia to Iran, and into modern day China, offered dominion over one of the ancient world’s most vital commercial arteries.

These regions, characterized by their mountainous terrain and fragmented local governance, posed significant challenges to Alexander’s campaign. The local rulers resisted fiercely, employing guerrilla tactics that tested the limits of Alexander’s military ingenuity. In response, Alexander adopted unconventional strategies, combining his tactical brilliance with a brutal determination to subdue these regions, establishing control over key strongholds and trade routes.

Alexander took a pivotal step in his effort to integrate the diverse peoples of his empire by marrying Roxana, a Sogdian princess. This marriage was not just a personal union but a political maneuver aimed at consolidating alliances and legitimizing his rule over the Central Asian territories. Roxana’s lineage connected Alexander to the local nobility, symbolizing a unification of Greek and Central Asian cultures—a recurring theme in his broader vision for a vast, interconnected empire.

Alexander understood the profound significance of this region—not merely as a source of revenue to expand his empire’s coffers but as a critical asset that, if left unclaimed, could empower his enemies as they did to the Greek Empire. The conquest of the Indus Valley was as much a defensive maneuver to neutralize potential threats as it was an offensive strategy to consolidate his burgeoning empire with a hint of vengance.

During the Greco-Persian Wars, Persian rulers skillfully exploited internal Greek rivalries, particularly between Athens and Sparta, by funding factions and fueling conflicts that fractured the Greek world. This approach mirrored the Zhou Dynasty’s deliberate efforts to fragment powerful enemies by sowing discord, a tactic that preserved their dominance in early China. For Persia, the result was the perpetuation of disunity in Greece, which limited its capacity to resist Persian influence, particularly in Asia Minor.

Repeated patterns are the ghostly fingerprints of time, etching templates of strategy across history, where each recurrence reveals a blueprint of intent, method, and consequence.Deja Vu?

Tore Maras

By the time of Alexander’s rise, this strategy had become an enduring mechanism of control. Satraps loyal to Darius III continued to funnel resources into weakening Macedonian authority in Greece. However, Alexander recognized a disturbing parallel—Persia’s power to destabilize extended far beyond the immediate region. The true question, which reflected the essence of his campaign, was not merely how these efforts were sustained but where the immense wealth fueling this calculated chaos originated. Alexander’s journey eastward was as much a mission to confront this geopolitical architecture as it was a conquest of lands and empires.

During the Zhou Dynasty‘s waning years embroiled in internal strife, the Zhou Dynasty turned its gaze westward, seeking to identify potential threats to its fragile supremacy. What they found, according to both history and legend, was a fertile opportunity: the Persian satraps, whose allegiances could be easily secured and manipulated. These satraps, adept at destabilizing rival powers, became unwitting instruments in a broader, far-reaching strategy.

Legend holds that the architect of this scheme was a figure of Orient royalty, a woman whose name has been lost to time but whose influence reverberates in the annals of strategy. Her intent, it is said, was not merely to counteract Persian expansion but to employ the satraps as tools to orchestrate chaos among empires perceived as future threats to the Zhou Dynasty. By funding both sides of conflicts—whether in Greece or among the fractured Persian domains—she ensured that no power emerged unscathed.

This tactic mirrored the Zhou Dynasty’s domestic policies during their decline: fostering division among rival states to extend their rule, even in the face of disintegration. The funding of wars in far-off lands, such as those between Greek city-states or within the Persian Empire, was a masterstroke of indirect control, weakening strong nations and leaving them vulnerable to external and internal collapse.

The Zhou Dynasty demonstrated unparalleled cunning by subtly influencing the fracturing of the Greek Empire, strategically ensuring Persia’s focus remained on the West. By funding discord in Greece, they diverted Persian ambitions away from the East, allowing China’s Warring States period to resolve without external interference. This masterstroke not only safeguarded China’s future but also set a chain reaction in motion: Alexander the Great’s eastern campaigns overextended Persia, leaving Rome unchallenged to rise in the West. Persia, consumed by its struggle against the Greeks and later Rome, found itself ensnared in a relentless western theater, leaving the East to forge its own destiny.

Alexander the Great’s Official Bloodline Terminated

Roxana’s influence on Alexander’s decision to return to Babylon can be attributed to her dual role as both his wife and a key representative of Central Asian nobility. Her political acumen and personal stakes in preserving her status likely played a crucial part in shaping Alexander’s vision of a stable empire centered on Babylon. Alexander, known for his flamboyance and susceptibility to romantic entanglements, may have been subtly maneuvered by Roxana to consolidate his gains rather than press further eastward—an advance that could have risked exposing his indiscretions to her homeland and the Orient, potentially diminishing her influence and causing public humiliation.

Alexander’s immune system was severely compromised by years of relentless campaigning and the toll of multiple battle wounds. Notably, he suffered a life-threatening chest injury during the Battle of the Mallian city in India (modern Pakistan), which may have resulted in chronic infections or lasting internal damage. The cumulative strain of his injuries, combined with his weakened state due to his sexual transgressions which was likely the source of contracting syphilis, likely rendered him vulnerable to the illness that ultimately claimed his life.

The cause of Alexander the Great’s death is portrayed as one of the most enduring mysteries of history, but it’s really not. He died on June 10 or 11, 323 BCE, in Babylon, at the age of 32. According to ancient accounts from Plutarch and Arrian, Alexander developed a fever that progressively worsened over several days, ultimately leading to his death. While some historians speculate the cause might have been malaria, typhoid fever, or West Nile virus, all diseases endemic to Babylon at the time, other sources, including oral traditions, suggest a far more controversial explanation: systemic syphilis.

Alexander’s wife, Roxana, had a presence that was far more than ceremonial; it symbolized the deliberate fusion of East and West, a cornerstone of Alexander’s imperial ideology. Babylon, with its strategic centrality and unmatched grandeur, provided an enticing locus for governance and cultural integration, aligning with Roxana’s interests in stabilizing the empire’s power structure. Her deft positioning ensured that Babylon would not only serve as Alexander’s imperial capital but also as the linchpin of their shared legacy, allowing her to safeguard her political relevance while subtly curbing his more reckless ambitions. After his death she ultimately fled for protection to Macedon and in the end her guardian Olympias was executed by Cassander and took control of Macedon. After gaining power in Macedon, Cassander imprisoned Roxana and her son Alexander IV, in the citadel of Amphipolis.

In 310 or 309 BCE, Cassander, determined to eliminate any threat to his rule, ordered the secret execution of Roxana and her son, Alexander IV. Their deaths marked the extinction of Alexander the Great’s direct bloodline, paving the way for the final fragmentation of his empire into independent Hellenistic kingdoms under the rule of his former generals.

According to later accounts, Roxana had suffered the loss of her nose five years before her execution. To conceal this disfigurement, she reportedly wore a Macedonian face guard, a detail that fueled grim speculation about the circumstances surrounding her mutilation. While some claimed her missing nose was the result of torture inflicted by Cassander, others insisted that the injury predated her imprisonment, suggesting a more personal or political cause. Some historians have cited the loss of Roxana’s nose as circumstantial evidence supporting the theory that Alexander the Great may have suffered from systemic syphilis, a condition he could have transmitted to his wife. Syphilis, particularly in its advanced stages, is known to cause severe tissue degeneration, including the collapse of nasal cartilage—a condition historically referred to as rhinophyma or saddle-nose deformity.

This didactic legend reveals that Alexander the Great’s genius lay not merely in his unmatched prowess as a military tactician or his relentless drive for revenge against Persia but in his visionary understanding of the deeper forces destabilizingthe Greek world. However, the brilliance of the warfare he encountered—rooted in Sun Tzu’s art of strategy—eventually pulled the rug out from under even Alexander himself.

The decline of Greece, fueled by Persian satraps such as Tissaphernes and Pharnabazus, was not merely a story of opportunistic meddling. These satraps, later revealed as traitors, were pawns in a far grander strategy orchestrated by a waning Zhou Dynasty in the Orient during the Warring States Period and by funneling resources to sow discord in Greece and prolong the conflict between Persia and thus allowing the rising power of Rome, the Zhou Dynasty bought centuries of strategic advantage, ensuring their survival long enough to allow their successor, the Qin Dynasty, to ascend with unparalleled strength.

This Tour de force of geopolitical manipulation reveals the brilliance of the Zhou Dynasty’s strategic patience. While the West was preoccupied with the fall of Greece, the wars of Persia, and the rise of Rome, the Zhou Dynasty’s waning power quietly shifted eastward, preparing the stage for the Qin Dynasty to emerge. The Qin Dynasty’s unification of China and their monumental accomplishments—most notably the Great Wall—symbolized the culmination of a long-term strategy honed through observing the missteps of other empires. The Qin Dynasty demonstrated a deep understanding of history, recognizing that patience and cultural adhesion are the foundations of lasting dominion.

All warfare is based on deception.~ (The Art of War, Chapter 1)

This principle underscores the idea that the most effective strategies often involve misleading your opponent, creating diversions, and exploiting their focus to your advantage. By funding conflicts in the Greek world and indirectly supporting instability in Persia, the Chinese effectively employed deception to keep these powers embroiled in their disputes. This strategic distraction ensured neither Alexander nor Persia could turn their full attention eastward, allowing the Chinese to expand and consolidate their power without confrontation.

As a teacher, history reveals patterns that those who study and learn from the past refine into strategies for global dominance. The Zhou Dynasty’s subtle maneuvering and the Qin Dynasty’s unrelenting execution of their vision exemplify this principle. Empires that adapt evolve and integrate diverse cultures while exercising patience achieve global significance. In the end, Alexander’s journey eastward was not just a march of conquest but an attempt to unravel the threads of a centuries-old strategy that ultimately shaped the destinies of both East and West.

The Great Wall, constructed by the Qin Dynasty, was a defensive barrier against external threats and a tool for cultural adhesion and control. By delineating the boundaries of their empire in the strategically chosen region, the Qin Dynasty sought to enforce unity within their realm while preventing dissenting groups and displaced populations from fleeing beyond their reach, effectively keeping their people in as much as keeping invaders out.

AUDIO VERSION ON SUBSTACK

TIP ME

If you like my work, you can tip or support me via TIP ME or subscribe to me on Subscribestar! You can also follow and subscribe to me on Rumble and Locals or subscribe to my Substack or on X. I am 100% people-funded. www.toresays.com