AHC : Alexandria, World-Capital

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

With Alexandria initial founding as the earliest limit, what ideas do people have to make Alexandria not just a major city, but effectively the capital of the world.

This does not mean that it is the seat of government for some world-spanning Empire, but is effectively the diplomatic, political and financial capital of the world. (as in, I'd allow a large Empire with many allies to count as meeting the challenge.)

 

[RightHoJeeves]

I don't know if this is feasible but what if Roman engineers built the Suez Canal? This would enable a direct sea route from the Mediterranean to the far eastern world greatly enhancing commerce and military opportunities for Rome. Alexandria, as capital of Roman Egypt, would increase in importance both as a trading port and a military base.

 

[isabella]

I don't know if this is feasible but what if Roman engineers built the Suez Canal? This would enable a direct sea route from the Mediterranean to the far eastern world greatly enhancing commerce and military opportunities for Rome. Alexandria, as capital of Roman Egypt, would increase in importance both as a trading port and a military base.

You need to kill off Rome first for having something like Alexandria capital of the world.

 

[Escape Zeppelin]

Constantine chooses Alexandria instead of Byzantium as the site for the new Roman capital. The ERE is then much more focused on the Red Sea and monopolizing the trade with India. This butterflies the creation of Islam and ERE territory slowly begins to spread down the coast of Africa and Arabia. Eventually they begin to retake some of the fractured WRE (possibly Hispania and portions of Italy). Their control over North Africa also positions them perfectly to control and expand the African gold/salt/slave trade.

Much later they are well positioned to slowly start acquiring Indian territory a la the British and French in our timeline. And as the dominant trading power in the Indian ocean they begin to establish the spice trade from SE Asia and Oceania. Stretching from Italy and Gibraltar to Zanzibar and with growing Indian and Asian colonies, the ERE is the dominant power across much of the old world.

 

[isabella]

Constantine chooses Alexandria instead of Byzantium as the site for the new Roman capital. The ERE is then much more focused on the Red Sea and monopolizing the trade with India. This butterflies the creation of Islam and ERE territory slowly begins to spread down the coast of Africa and Arabia. Eventually they begin to retake some of the fractured WRE (possibly Hispania and portions of Italy). Their control over North Africa also positions them perfectly to control and expand the African gold/salt/slave trade.

Much later they are well positioned to slowly start acquiring Indian territory a la the British and French in our timeline. And as the dominant trading power in the Indian ocean they begin to establish the spice trade from SE Asia and Oceania. Stretching from Italy and Gibraltar to Zanzibar and with growing Indian and Asian colonies, the ERE is the dominant power across much of the old world.

Well, this can work unlike what I said before...

 

[catalfalque]

There were fears that Julius Caesar was going to head to Rome and make it his effective capital. Maybe he gets warning of the assassination plot (as a real thing and not a general idea) and is able to either pre-empt it or get enough of his supporters in the area to survive it. This would certainly add to his disillusion with Rome the city.

Or, Pompey who was a Big Thing in the East either wins over Caesar in the civil war, or they effectively share the empire, and split it into two de factor halves.

 

[Essayist of History]

Alexandria becoming the capital of the ERE as mentioned before is the best chance it has. Otherwise I don't see it surviving the Arab invasion and seizing to exist as "Alexandria". The ERE or whatever political entity that succeeds it then needs to engage in some form of expansion in order to make Alexandria a world preeminent city similar to Amsterdam or Shanghai.

 

[Socrates]

Alexander lives, grooms a capable successor and builds an Empire from the Pillars of Hercules to the Hindu Kush. The ruling classes of Greece, Egypt, Carthage and Persia are syncretized, forming a common Greek culture over all of Western Eurasia and North Africa. A successor moves the capital to Alexandria.

This Empire later industrializes first and colonizes most of the world.

 

[isabella]

Alexandria becoming the capital of the ERE as mentioned before is the best chance it has. Otherwise I don't see it surviving the Arab invasion and seizing to exist as "Alexandria". The ERE or whatever political entity that succeeds it then needs to engage in some form of expansion in order to make Alexandria a world preeminent city similar to Amsterdam or Shanghai.

Not really. I have an alternative... Either Alexander of Epirus or his nephew Alexander the Great live longer enough to destroy and submit Rome and Carthage, plus Alexander conquer Arabia and create a long lasting Empire. Alexandria initially is only one of the capitals of the Empire but with time, the creation of an ATL canal of Suez and the ulterior expansion of the Empire Alexandria will become both the official capital and the political, economical and cultural center of the Empire

 

[Skallagrim]

Alexander lives decades longer, conquers both Arabia and the Western Med, realises his ambition of restoring the Canal of the Pharaos, connects his empire through a vast infrastructual programme, realises that - being next to the aforementioned canal - Alexandria rests upon the very point where all Western trade and all Eastern trade must meet, and puts his capital there. He continues his policy of integrating Macedonian en Persian culture, and since he's around to make it happen, the cross-cultural marriages actually stick and heirs are produces. A generation of cosmopolitan aristocrats grows up, with loyalty to the Empire rather than to any nation in it. Since Alexander lives so much longer, his son inherits the empire as an adult. He is also the leading figure of the best and brightest among this new generation, treating them as his Companions and enjoying their loyalty and friendship.

The Empire lasts a very long time, in part due to good luck, and expands into various directions at various points, as technology marches on. Because Hellenistic culture stays very much alive - and its characteristic exchange of philosophical and scientic ideas is actually much broader due to the Empire's size and its great infrastructure - science progresses faster in this ATL. The Empire happens to last long enough to gradually gain the tech needed to make possible further expansion. Even though it faces periods of fragmentation, its identity as the Empire means that it always gets ressurected, "China-like". Eventually, the fourth or fifth incarnation of the Empire (now under a totally different dynasty, but still ruled from Alexandria, the city of cities) reaches the tech we associate with the modern era and the industrial revolution in OTL. It becomes the undisputed foremost power on Earth, and while some other states may very well continue to exist, none can actually challenge the global hegemony of the Empire.

There. Done. And with my favourite historical figure in the starring role, too.

(EDIT: ninja'd by @isabella, who clearly knows what's what!)

 

[Essayist of History]

Not really. I have an alternative... Either Alexander of Epirus or his nephew Alexander the Great live longer enough to destroy and submit Rome and Carthage, plus Alexander conquer Arabia and create a long lasting Empire. Alexandria initially is only one of the capitals of the Empire but with time, the creation of an ATL canal of Suez and the ulterior expansion of the Empire Alexandria will become both the official capital and the political, economical and cultural center of the Empire

Alexander is not conquering Arabia and much less Rome and Carthage, unless he stops advancing into Iran and Hindustan and instead concentrates on conquering Arabia, Rome and Carthage. Even then, conquering the massive Arabian Peninsula, which should not be easy at all seeing how the Assyrians had trouble just conquering the outlying Arabs close to Jordan and Iraq, then keeping this territory, then going for Rome and Carthage who are protected by the Mediterranean, is some serious overplaying of Alexander's conquering capacity.

Also, it's very unlikely that Alexander could have survived longer anyway. Between the head wound in Gaza, the arrow in Multan, the various punishments he submit his body crossing the desert, and other injuries he got, he wasn't on any good condition and it's not hard to see why he died when he was just 30. So he is not surviving to even attempt conquering those territories you say anyway.

 

[isabella]

Alexander is not conquering Arabia and much less Rome and Carthage, unless he stops advancing into Iran and Hindustan and instead concentrates on conquering Arabia, Rome and Carthage. Even then, conquering the massive Arabian Peninsula, which should not be easy at all seeing how the Assyrians had trouble just conquering the outlying Arabs close to Jordan and Iraq, then keeping this territory, then going for Rome and Carthage who are protected by the Mediterranean, is some serious overplaying of Alexander's conquering capacity.

Also, it's very unlikely that Alexander could have survived longer anyway. Between the head wound in Gaza, the arrow in Multan, the various punishments he submit his body crossing the desert, and other injuries he got, he wasn't on any good condition and it's not hard to see why he died when he was just 30. So he is not surviving to even attempt conquering those territories you say anyway.

Well Alexander OTL has stopped to go east and was planning the conquest of Arabia.
Butterfly the death and last loss of Alexander of Epirus (Alexander’s uncle and brother-in-law) and have him conquer Italy and destroying Rome in some years. Butterfly Hephaistion and Alexander’s death and give them the time of having children by their Persian wives (Stateira for Alexander or at the worst Parysatis not Roxane) and give them time to conquer at least Arabia. Carthage will be destroyed either by Alexander of Epirus or by someone else (aka Alexander of Macedonia will not take personally the command of the campaign) in the next years

 

[Essayist of History]

Alexander lives decades longer, conquers both Arabia and the Western Med, realises his ambition of restoring the Canal of the Pharaos, connects his empire through a vast infrastructual programme, realises that - being next to the aforementioned canal - Alexandria rests upon the very point where all Western trade and all Eastern trade must meet, and puts his capital there. He continues his policy of integrating Macedonian en Persian culture, and since he's around to make it happen, the cross-cultural marriages actually stick and heirs are produces. A generation of cosmopolitan aristocrats grows up, with loyalty to the Empire rather than to any nation in it. Since Alexander lives so much longer, his son inherits the empire as an adult. He is also the leading figure of the best and brightest among this new generation, treating them as his Companions and enjoying their loyalty and friendship.

The Empire lasts a very long time, in part due to good luck, and expands into various directions at various points, as technology marches on. Because Hellenistic culture stays very much alive - and its characteristic exchange of philosophical and scientic ideas is actually much broader due to the Empire's size and its great infrastructure - science progresses faster in this ATL. The Empire happens to last long enough to gradually gain the tech needed to make possible further expansion. Even though it faces periods of fragmentation, its identity as the Empire means that it always gets ressurected, "China-like". Eventually, the fourth or fifth incarnation of the Empire (now under a totally different dynasty, but still ruled from Alexandria, the city of cities) reaches the tech we associate with the modern era and the industrial revolution in OTL. It becomes the undisputed foremost power on Earth, and while some other states may very well continue to exist, none can actually challenge the global hegemony of the Empire.

There. Done. And with my favourite historical figure in the starring role, too.

(EDIT: ninja'd by @isabella, who clearly knows what's what!)

This is some serious overplaying of the Greeks based on the absurd myths of Richard Carrier and Lucio Russo who genuinely believe that the Greeks and Romans were close to an industrial revolution, especially the former, when they were no more advanced scientifically and technologically than the Indians, Parthians and Chinese, even the likes of the Celts and Germanics.

 

[Essayist of History]

Well Alexander OTL has stopped to go east and was planning the conquest of Arabia.
Butterfly the death and last loss of Alexander of Epirus (Alexander’s uncle and brother-in-law) and have him conquer Italy and destroying Rome in some years. Butterfly Hephaistion and Alexander’s death and give them the time of having children by their Persian wives (Stateira for Alexander or at the worst Parysatis not Roxane) and give them time to conquer at least Arabia. Carthage will be destroyed either by Alexander of Epirus or by someone else (aka Alexander of Macedonia will not take personally the command of the campaign) in the next years

Except this becomes ASB. Alexander's health was too deteriorated to survive longer, and his empire was too massive for further conquest. Alexander the Great can at best conquer the Arabian Peninsula but he has to give up conquering the rest of the Persian empire, and he is still not conquering Carthage and Rome, who are too protected by geography. None of his successors are doing that either since they're too busy carving the empire for themselves to go into conquest campaigns. Even if an appointed successor manages to keep the empire together, he is still failing in further expansion due to how overextended the empire was.

 

[isabella]

Except this becomes ASB. Alexander's health was too deteriorated to survive longer, and his empire was too massive for further conquest. Alexander the Great can at best conquer the Arabian Peninsula but he has to give up conquering the rest of the Persian empire, and he is still not conquering Carthage and Rome, who are too protected by geography. None of his successors are doing that either since they're too busy carving the empire for themselves to go into conquest campaigns. Even if an appointed successor manages to keep the empire together, he is still failing in further expansion due to how overextended the empire was.

Still I have not said Alexander will conquista the West... I specifically left Rome to Alexander of Epirus and Carthage to either Alexander of Epirus or a general of Alexander. Plus if the OTL situation at Alexander’s death was the worst ever, something who would be thinked as ASB if it had not happened. Alexander need to left a son by Stateira (by Parysatis also can work as mother but Stateira is better) as heir not the unborn child of the too much ambitious and powerless Roxane and his Empire will likely survive for long time.
Plus Alexander’s death was surely conditionated by the loss of his best friend, right hand, confidant and brother-in-law Hephaistion (and I had said here that will not happen so Alexander will not suffer his OTL despair).
Alexander had already conquered and submitted the whole Persian Empire... He was already out of their confines when his men forced him to go back

 

[Essayist of History]

Still I have not said Alexander will conquista the West... I specifically left Rome to Alexander of Epirus and Carthage to either Alexander of Epirus or a general of Alexander. Plus if the OTL situation at Alexander’s death was the worst ever, something who would be thinked as ASB if it had not happened. Alexander need to left a son by Stateira (by Parysatis also can work as mother but Stateira is better) as heir not the unborn child of the too much ambitious and powerless Roxane and his Empire will likely survive for long time.
Plus Alexander’s death was surely conditionated by the loss of his best friend, right hand, confidant and brother-in-law Hephaistion (and I had said here that will not happen so Alexander will not suffer his OTL despair).
Alexander had already conquered and submitted the whole Persian Empire... He was already out of their confines when his men forced him to go back

It doesn't matter if it's one of Alexander's generals, they're still not conquering the Arabs, Carthage and Rome because of geography and imperial overextension. It's simply not feasible.

 

[Byzantine fanatic]

I don't know if this is feasible but what if Roman engineers built the Suez Canal? This would enable a direct sea route from the Mediterranean to the far eastern world greatly enhancing commerce and military opportunities for Rome. Alexandria, as capital of Roman Egypt, would increase in importance both as a trading port and a military base.

Didn't the Persians build a canal in Egypt, something like this?

 

[Skallagrim]

There are some people - and I get the impression that @Essayist of History is one of them - who derive great pleasure from being contrarians who always claim that anything great must actually be less than we perceive it to be. That is very nice, and even healthy to any debate, but I have noticed that at a certain point it becomes less than constructive. Scepticism can be so far extended that it becomes a dogmatic denial that anything great could even exist.

The fact of the matter is that Alexander was preparing to invade Arabia when he died, that he had soldiers in sufficient number to see it through even if he suffered losses in excess of 50% (which would not have been the case, as he only really sought to control the coastal trade ports), and that he was building the greatest fleet the region would ever have seen. He controlled the treasury of the Akhaimenid Empire, in which vast sums remained, which allowed him to finance this without any serious issue arising. The tendency to negate anything Alexander might have achieved is based purely on the unwise behaviourism I have outlined above, and has little to do with any facts. It is true that Alexander's life-style was dangerous, and it indeed likely he would have died quite soon after his OTL death if he kept it up. This is countered by the fact that the very arrow-wound he received from the Mallians really slowed him down. To the extent that he was planning to travel by ship during the Arabian campaign, letting others command the two armies sent down both sides of the peninsula. This is something he had never done before, and rather shows it was finally getting through to him that he wasn't immortal.

If we assume the premise that (by pure chance) Alexander lives long enough, the scenario of his overwhelming success is hardly out of the question. It's a matter of momentum. Once you get a certain thing in motion, it just becomes very hard to stop. Once you establish an Empire that cannot be defeated by any external foe, that Empire will last until it fails internally. (See: Toynee, Arnold.)

I'm quite sure that after conquering Arabia, Alexander could have taken Carthage, Rome and whatever other states he wanted in the Western Med. They were absolutely no match for the power he was able to project at that point. Observe that the greatest danger would be "the other end" of his empire revolting against him, but that actually, he was quite beloved in Persia, and all insurrections in OTL happened in the West (and at times he was far away). With him in the West again, his Empire was quite secure. (Observe also that the oft-raised matter of Chandragupta would be a non-issue: Chandragupta invaded because Alexander was dead and his successors were in-fighting. Facing a united empire, he would be far too smart to risk that, which can be supported by his typically calculated manner in OTL.) I state again: Alexander's Empire is at this point secure and in order. His further conquests in the West will only generate a broader tax base in the future.

Then we get to science. Here we also disagree. While Russo has a distinct tendency to over-emphasise and to go on wild speculative tours of the imagination (he bases one "could have" on a previous "could have" more than once), he does point out very real developments. We can say, without distorting or exaggerating anything, that there were Romans in the late first century AD who commented on Hellenistic math dissertations-- and their commentary illustrates that they failed to fully understand the math! Knowledge was lost. Russo's problem is that he imagines the Hellenistic World was at the very edgo of an industrial revolution, which is clearly wrong. And indeed, not only Greek (or rather broader: Hellenistic, ehich is not just "Greek") insights were advanced, but the Indians and the Persians as well. Thing is... Alexander had just annexed Persia, which would put Greece and Persia in one polity... which bordered on India... which was (per his explicit plans) set to invest in infrastructure... which would further the exchange of knowledge.

My claim is that this would benefit science and technology. Not leading to a scientific revolution right away, but quite realistically bringing it much closer in time. After, say, a few centuries to a millennium, we might see such a thing. That's still much sooner than in OTL. And that's not the radical kind of claim Russo makes.

Now, needless to say, a habitual contrarian will reject all of this out of hand because of a dogmatic belief that it cannot possibly be true, but any somewhat objective observer will realise that this is not so strange an outline I have presented here.

 

[Escape Zeppelin]

Didn't the Persians build a canal in Egypt, something like this?

There was the Canal of the Pharaohs. It led from the Nile through the desert to the Red Sea. The difficulty is that it was prone to silting and as a result was very expensive to maintain. Abandoned and rebuilt a couple times, it was eventually closed in 770 AD due to internal Egyptian political unrest and was never rebuilt.

I suspect that part of the reason that it was never rebuilt after 770 was that the rise of Islam moved many of the Europe to Asia trade routes north to the overland route of the Caspian/Black Sea to Constantinople instead of the Red Sea-Persian Gulf that had dominated previously. Christian Europe avoiding the Red Sea to Med trade probably made the Canal of Pharaohs a lot less profitable and not worth keeping.

 

[Essayist of History]

There are some people - and I get the impression that @Essayist of History is one of them - who derive great pleasure from being contrarians who always claim that anything great must actually be less than we perceive it to be. That is very nice, and even healthy to any debate, but I have noticed that at a certain point it becomes less than constructive. Scepticism can be so far extended that it becomes a dogmatic denial that anything great could even exist.

The fact of the matter is that Alexander was preparing to invade Arabia when he died, that he had soldiers in sufficient number to see it through even if he suffered losses in excess of 50% (which would not have been the case, as he only really sought to control the coastal trade ports), and that he was building the greatest fleet the region would ever have seen. He controlled the treasury of the Akhaimenid Empire, in which vast sums remained, which allowed him to finance this without any serious issue arising. The tendency to negate anything Alexander might have achieved is based purely on the unwise behaviourism I have outlined above, and has little to do with any facts. It is true that Alexander's life-style was dangerous, and it indeed likely he would have died quite soon after his OTL death if he kept it up. This is countered by the fact that the very arrow-wound he received from the Mallians really slowed him down. To the extent that he was planning to travel by ship during the Arabian campaign, letting others command the two armies sent down both sides of the peninsula. This is something he had never done before, and rather shows it was finally getting through to him that he wasn't immortal.

If we assume the premise that (by pure chance) Alexander lives long enough, the scenario of his overwhelming success is hardly out of the question. It's a matter of momentum. Once you get a certain thing in motion, it just becomes very hard to stop. Once you establish an Empire that cannot be defeated by any external foe, that Empire will last until it fails internally. (See: Toynee, Arnold.)

I'm quite sure that after conquering Arabia, Alexander could have taken Carthage, Rome and whatever other states he wanted in the Western Med. They were absolutely no match for the power he was able to project at that point. Observe that the greatest danger would be "the other end" of his empire revolting against him, but that actually, he was quite beloved in Persia, and all insurrections in OTL happened in the West (and at times he was far away). With him in the West again, his Empire was quite secure. (Observe also that the oft-raised matter of Chandragupta would be a non-issue: Chandragupta invaded because Alexander was dead and his successors were in-fighting. Facing a united empire, he would be far too smart to risk that, which can be supported by his typically calculated manner in OTL.) I state again: Alexander's Empire is at this point secure and in order. His further conquests in the West will only generate a broader tax base in the future.

Then we get to science. Here we also disagree. While Russo has a distinct tendency to over-emphasise and to go on wild speculative tours of the imagination (he bases one "could have" on a previous "could have" more than once), he does point out very real developments. We can say, without distorting or exaggerating anything, that there were Romans in the late first century AD who commented on Hellenistic math dissertations-- and their commentary illustrates that they failed to fully understand the math! Knowledge was lost. Russo's problem is that he imagines the Hellenistic World was at the very edgo of an industrial revolution, which is clearly wrong. And indeed, not only Greek (or rather broader: Hellenistic, ehich is not just "Greek") insights were advanced, but the Indians and the Persians as well. Thing is... Alexander had just annexed Persia, which would put Greece and Persia in one polity... which bordered on India... which was (per his explicit plans) set to invest in infrastructure... which would further the exchange of knowledge.

My claim is that this would benefit science and technology. Not leading to a scientific revolution right away, but quite realistically bringing it much closer in time. After, say, a few centuries to a millennium, we might see such a thing. That's still much sooner than in OTL. And that's not the radical kind of claim Russo makes.

Now, needless to say, a habitual contrarian will reject all of this out of hand because of a dogmatic belief that it cannot possibly be true, but any somewhat objective observer will realise that this is not so strange an outline I have presented here.

Sorry, but this is just overrating Alexander way too much. With Arabia, I don't doubt that Alexander's armies are stronger than those of the local Arabs, but between overextension and the desertic environment plus the size of the Arabian Peninsula simply makes this conquest impossible. At most he is annexing a few northern territories, but nothing significantly.

With Carthage and Rome it's the same only worse since they're even further away from Alexander and have the added need for a powerful fleet, which are a further logistical problem for Alexander's massive overextended empire. He has the resources, but when you point out that he can't keep up with such a massive territory, said resources just become impossible to manage into an effective cohesive naval force.

Finally, it's clear Alexander's empire would have collapsed even if he had survived. It was simply far too big. Indian territories would be lost to Chandragupta, and internal rivalries would erupt, not to mention native revolts.