John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Right, but essentially the same political culture (or civilization, or whatever you want to call it) would rule in Persia, right?
WI No Alexander the Great?
- Thread starter John Fredrick Parker
- Start date
Right, but essentially the same political culture (or civilization, or whatever you want to call it) would rule in Persia, right?
What might Alexander be like if he became King of Macedonia 10-20 years later than OTL?
I imagine he'd still be a genius, but he might be a bit more mature.
Maybe he'd seek to expand his father's empire, but from a much more secure base?
I imagine he'd still be a genius, but he might be a bit more mature.
Maybe he'd seek to expand his father's empire, but from a much more secure base?
Wolfpaw
Banned
What the...what? Genius? Alexander was a lot of things, but genius? What on earth gives you that idea
Flocculencio
Donor
What the...what? Genius? Alexander was a lot of things, but genius? What on earth gives you that idea
A lot of people overlook the fact that he merely competently used the combined arms force his father developed. Phillip of Macedon was the real bright spark there.
Wolfpaw
Banned
I think he also gets a lot of credit for being a student of Aristotle the Arch-Bigot.
I never understand why Alexander is called 'the Great'! Of course he was a great murderer and plunderer. He swept across parts of Europe, Africa,and Asia killing people,plundering cities and destroying civilizations. He was a student of Aristotle, who in turn was a disciple of Plato, who was a disciple of the great man like Socrates. The wisdom of three generations of great philosophers could produce only a drunkard, a murderer, a robber! What a colossal waste of learning! Of course during a short span of life he brought about so much destruction that a few could ever equal or surpass. Why don't we call Attila, Chengis Khan, Timur and never to miss great Fuhrer Hitler 'Great'. All of them deserve the title as much as Alexander,"the Great."
It is more to fitting to call him Alexander "The Conqueror" instead of "The Great".
He certainly know how to conquer lands but not in administrating the conquered lands himself - his empire crumbles after his death...
He's somewhat similar to Genghis Khan.
I don't see much of a difference between Philip and Alexander in the first part of the campaign;Alexander established his fame at Cheronea when the part of the heavy cavalry in the left wing under Alexander broke the Theban battle line and decided the battle
hilip would have liked to be certain about Alexander's abilities and he would have allowed him to take the Northern campaign(under the eyes of some of Philip's personal staff)) the rapid campaign that established Alexander's reputation as a general.Parmenion was already in Asia enlarging his beachhead and I don't see Thebes revolting with Philip in Pella.Granicus and Issus would have the same result with Alexander commanding the entire heavy cavalry this time,with the known results;
The danger from the Persian navy was what caused the advance south to deprive the Persians from their naval bases,in my opinion,was a plan already discussed with Alexander before they landed in Asia; Philp was strategically more experienced than Alexander at that time and Tyros and Sidon would have had the same fate.
That Egypt would have been liberated is more than certain because Greeks
had assisted the Egyptians in previous uprisings,Philip would have liked to be called son of Amon and Alexandria would have been built as it did under a different name,but still the same city,Persia would have been deprived of naval bases in the Mediterranean as a result.
The whole difference would be the treatment of Darius'letter to Philip this time,not to Alexander.Philip as a better diplomat and geopolitically more adept than Alexander would have accepted the terms of Darius,probably incuding a proposal of marriage for his daughter with Alexander in order to cement the treaty between the two nations and a probable alliance.
Philip would return to Pella and from there he would organise the new eastern holdings(the new status of Egypt unknown...) and that would leave a restless Alexander to probably deal with the west and Hellenize Italy(probably with a new Alexandria in the place of Ostia with its back to the ruins of Rome...)
Last edited:
It may have been absolutley hilarious to read the campaigns of Alexander had Diogenes of Sinope decided to, on the spur of the moment, go with him on his conquest.
Alexander seemed like he needed an honest man he could listen to that he respected and was always guaranteed to insult you and deride your accomplishments.
Without Alex I doubt the conquests would be as immense. His empire was seemingly enlarged to make room for his god-like ego and his wild goose chase to give his conquest closure by killing Darius. When that did not pan out he pursued Darius' murderer to the middle of bloody nowhere effectively to end some goal he made for himself to legitamise going further.
The Macedonian army would be unrivalled against Persian forces so who is to say that the Achaemenid Empire will fall after either one shocking campaign by Philip, or by further attempts under his successors. Though marriage may give his successors a legitamate excuse to invade.
Greek culture may not be as widespread or spread as quickly in that scenario overall, but there will still be those local nobles trying to emulate their new overlords in the regions that fall to the Macedonians.
Alexander seemed like he needed an honest man he could listen to that he respected and was always guaranteed to insult you and deride your accomplishments.
Without Alex I doubt the conquests would be as immense. His empire was seemingly enlarged to make room for his god-like ego and his wild goose chase to give his conquest closure by killing Darius. When that did not pan out he pursued Darius' murderer to the middle of bloody nowhere effectively to end some goal he made for himself to legitamise going further.
The Macedonian army would be unrivalled against Persian forces so who is to say that the Achaemenid Empire will fall after either one shocking campaign by Philip, or by further attempts under his successors. Though marriage may give his successors a legitamate excuse to invade.
Greek culture may not be as widespread or spread as quickly in that scenario overall, but there will still be those local nobles trying to emulate their new overlords in the regions that fall to the Macedonians.
I think that if a historical character is to be called "Great",he must have done significant and distinguished service to the humanity, at least to a portion of the people.Socrates,Buddha,Jesus,Confucius,Galileo,Leonardo Da Vinci,Damien,Leo Tolstoy,Florence Nightingale,Mahatma Gandhi,Mother Theresa etc.are just some of the names.The list can go longer and longer if you spare time to count.Among the kings and emperors it is difficult to find many.Ashoka the Great is one example.
Esopo
Banned
the same Ashoka who slaughtered his way through the mostly liberal state of kalinga and the rest of india and who played the same role to buddhism which constantine playe to christianity?
Actually i prefer the far more honest Alexander "i want to rule the whole world" than some "i kill and conquer but then convert and act as a moral ruler".
King Ashoka is called 'Great' only after his transformation following the battle of Kalinga. Ashoka before 'Kalinga' is called 'Chandashoka',meaning ' Ashoka the Cruel'.It is said that he was not the eldest among the sons of Bindusara,nor was he the favorite of his father.On the death of Bindusara,there ensued a struggle for the throne and Prince Ashoka captured the throne with the might of his sword, putting many of his brothers to death. He put down all the opposition with an iron hand and never desisted from spilling blood.His attack of Kalinga was a calculated move and he did not expect an easy walkover. The Kalingans fought bravely but was no match for the Imperial Mauryan Army numbering several hundreds of thousands.The slaughter was of immense proportions and the devastation was total.The victorious Emperor who arrived at the battlefield to celebrate his victory was stunned by the magnitude of the destruction caused by his action.He felt great remorse and put away his sword.He vowed never to fight war or spill blood in future. He decided to follow the path of Lord Buddha who preached non-violence.Thereafter 'Chandashoka' came to be known as 'Dharmashoka' or 'Ashoka the Righteous'.It was this Ashoka who is called 'the Great'.
The first thing that needs to be understood here is why Alexander so easily destroyed Persia. Basically, Persia was a politically rotten and militarily ineffective entity compared to the Macedonian Kingdom. That was the fruit of Philip II's labors, not Alexander's.
If you assume Philip is there, but not Alexander, then Persia still gets smacked around quite a lot. The Greeks had been aware of their relative ability since the Anabasis. The problem was a lack of unity, which is what Philip (and Alexander) gave them.
To assume that no other monarch would come down the road who could fashion a stable enough platform to invade the Persian Empire is ludicrous. Sooner or later, someone would come along, put Greek affairs in order, and use Greek military might to start carving Persia up like a roast goose.
The main difference is that Alexander, being Alexander, took that to extremes. Philip might have settled with carving off the Mediterranean half of the empire, setting up client states, etc, sort of a Macedonian version of the Eastern Empire. Another monarch, like a Pyrrhus of sorts, might have settled for less, say Anatolia and Cyprus or whatever.
So Persia would have survived without Alexander, but as a weakened, destabilized state that would have been expelled from the Mediterranean, in the long term if not the short term. In other words, it would be a lot like what came under the Arascids.
If you assume Philip is there, but not Alexander, then Persia still gets smacked around quite a lot. The Greeks had been aware of their relative ability since the Anabasis. The problem was a lack of unity, which is what Philip (and Alexander) gave them.
To assume that no other monarch would come down the road who could fashion a stable enough platform to invade the Persian Empire is ludicrous. Sooner or later, someone would come along, put Greek affairs in order, and use Greek military might to start carving Persia up like a roast goose.
The main difference is that Alexander, being Alexander, took that to extremes. Philip might have settled with carving off the Mediterranean half of the empire, setting up client states, etc, sort of a Macedonian version of the Eastern Empire. Another monarch, like a Pyrrhus of sorts, might have settled for less, say Anatolia and Cyprus or whatever.
So Persia would have survived without Alexander, but as a weakened, destabilized state that would have been expelled from the Mediterranean, in the long term if not the short term. In other words, it would be a lot like what came under the Arascids.
But then, a man can't be sincere in remorses, and desire to make up? we are unmovable, static?
Esopo
Banned
That's the point. we cant be sure about ancient people's motives...
and even if he was too disgusted by blood to keep fighting, well the same was for napoleon the third after solferino, but he was still an imperialist.
Socrates: almost completely unknown to history except through the lens of Plato who perverted his teachings to justify proto-fascism. Hardly worthy.
Buddha, Jesus, Confucius: even the people who support this lot wouldn't want them called 'Great' given how they're all semi/wholly divine.
Galileo: fair play.
Damien: the devil-child? Not sure Jesus the Great would approve.
Tolstoy: again, fair play.
Da Vinci: bright guy but he didn't accomplish much; most of his works are unfinished and he was a true Renaissance man in that he was completely mercenary in whom he worked for so long as they paid well.
Nightingale: more people died in her hospitals than in any others; she did good work for nursing and was a pioneering statistician, but ultimately her role was massively overstated. Mary Seacole would be more deserving, I feel.
Gandhi: once more, fair play.
Mother Theresa: a vile women who claimed, while accepting her blood-bought Nobel Peace Prize, that the biggest threats to the world were abortion and contraception. Her fanaticism and belief that salvation through suffering was best for the people of Kolkota doomed thousands to penury and miserable, unnecessary deaths. She played the West for money and whored herself out to be the acceptable face of a rotting, corpulent and sinister Church which was simultaneously trying to hide their own skeletons while the nice little nun took the spotlight away. She deserves to be damned as a traitor to humankind and as a curse to those who looked to her for charity.
As far I know, he, unlike Alexender, stopped at one point.
Better Asoka who had some wisdom than the rather cold and at times crazed Alexander.
Saepe, meh...
Untill the conquest of Egypt he would have done what Alexander did,for very obvious reasons.The diffence comes with the letter of Darius ceding all
areas conquered by Philip and asking for alliance.Philip being a very rational man would have accepted on the strength that the aerea ceded to him could be easily controlled by the Greek world;from that world Philip would have had much greater help because the Greeks new who Philip was and he would have had substantial help especially in ships including the Athenian squadrons so that he would dominate the Eastern Mediterranean.Of course he would have created an independent Egyptian state along with their gratitude for their liberation from the Persian yoke.