AHC: Have Alexander the Great Turn West, Not East, & Attack Carthage & Rome, Not Persia, In 334 B.C.

I know, I know- this senario is so unlikely as to just about be ASB. Heck, if I’d been in
Alexander’s shoes I probably would have done exactly as he did(Persia being too big,
too powerful, & above all perhaps, too RICH
to leave unattended in the rear). But hear me out...

I got the idea for this thread from the great
French historian Fernand Braudel, who ass-
erted that this is what ATG should have done. Of course it would have meant, as I
posted above, going up against Carthage &
Rome- but @ the time would they have been
more formidable than Persia?(Which in any
case IOTL ATG conquered with incredible- &
ridiculous- ease). Nor would it have been in-
evitable that Persia would have seized the
opportunity to attack ATG’s rear. In 334 Per-
sia & Greece had achieved an uneasy, but
nevertheless real detente. The Persians might- probably- would have given after a
while covert aid to ATG’s enemies(as they did to Sparta in the closing stages of the
Peloponnesian War)but may not have gone
beyond that.

If ATG had gone west, Braudel asserts, the
Mediterranean might have become a Greek,
instead of a Roman, lake. In other words, a
Greek empire in the West could have been
born. I wonder if perhaps such an empire
would NOT have fallen apart after ATG died
(as his did IOTL). This might have out-&-out
butterflied Rome away. Or it still would have
risen, but developed in ways quite different
than it did IOTL. That all history could have
been changed is obvious.

Thus what Alexander chose to do(& not do)
in 334 was, I would argue, of literally earth-
shaking importance(though of course only
obvious now-& hindsight is always 20-20).

But I’ve blabbed on long enough. Thoughts
people!

To consult Braudel directly, see his book,
MEMORY AND THE MEDITERRANEAN, pp.
244-247 of the 2002, Vintage paperbacks
edition.
 
Last edited:
One major problem is that, in the era of Alexander the Great, the western and central Mediterranean was peripheral.Magna Graecia and Carthage and the Etruscan city-states all supported brilliant and innovative cultures, but as late as the time of Alexander the Great they did not form empires. All of these cultures actually formed as a direct result of interaction with the older civilizations of the eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. Magna Graecia and Carthage were created directly by immigration from the east, while more indirect diffusion explains the Etruscans. Certainly none of these civilizations had the sheer chronological depth of Egypt, Mesopotamia, or Persia.

In a very real sense these civilizations were peripheral, even forgettable. They were insignificant prizes for any conqueror, insignificant enough that not claiming them would not detract from the scope of a conqueror's achievements. Yes, conceivably a Hellenistic imperium projected west into the Mediterranean could have resulted in a Hellenistic Mediterranean that would have played to the very long-run advantage of Greek civilization. So what? The benefits of this would have come long after the death of Alexander the Great, and moreover would have needed to be a conscious choice made by Alexander the Great, neglecting the more obvious benefits of expansion to the east. Why would Alexander the Great not have looked towards rich Anatolia with its long history of Greek settlement, if nothing else?
 
Now, I do wonder if it was possible for a successful Hellenistic empire to look west towards the Mediterranean. What if, instead of pushing towards India, Alexander the Great decided to consolidate an eastern Mediterranean empire? Such a polity might well be capable of expanding west into the Mediterranean.
 
Now, I do wonder if it was possible for a successful Hellenistic empire to look west towards the Mediterranean. What if, instead of pushing towards India, Alexander the Great decided to consolidate an eastern Mediterranean empire? Such a polity might well be capable of expanding west into the Mediterranean.

And he would have lived longer too, which
might also have welded his empire together
(I guess I’m getting a little obsessed with
trying to figure out some way to have pre-
vented ATG’s sprawling domains from break-
ing up).
 
It might be more feasible to have him try to go back west after conquering Persia instead of trying to campaign in India, rather than going west to begin with.
 
And he would have lived longer too, which
might also have welded his empire together
(I guess I’m getting a little obsessed with
trying to figure out some way to have pre-
vented ATG’s sprawling domains from break-
ing up).

Why would he have lived longer? He’d still have drunk as much as he did, and he’d still have been vulnerable to arrows and swords and stones as much as he was.
 
If he’d attempted going west, the lack of ready profit, the hardships of a far harder campaign, unaided by efficient roads and prominent harbours, and the threat of Persia and Sparta in the East would have brought his march to a sudden halt. Plus, Alexander was only ever interested in the West for keeping the Adriatic secure, there was no plausible reason for him to prefer going there instead of East.
 
Why would he have lived longer? He’d still have drunk as much as he did, and he’d still have been vulnerable to arrows and swords and stones as much as he was.

True- but I was thinking the kind of diseases
which lurk in India(which I believe he con-
reacted- & no, I’m not talking about VD)are
not found in Western Europe.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
Only Rome was worth conquering and smaller Pheonician colonies which wouldn't be much worth for his conquest compared to Babylon and Bactria. Only Rome was a city of worth a conquest in the West compared to Babylon,Sogdia or Persia. But it was not for colonization or something. If so,he would have turned West. But he first wanted to avenge the Persian invasion and continued into the Northern part of then Indian subcontinent (begins from Bactria/Sogdia). But if he lived on,he might have conquered Italy and did what the Romans did to Greece. Conquer and copy all culture and praise them. Interesting timeline it would be.
 
There was the "revenge against Persia!" bit, hard to handwave that away. Carthage, Rome and other states in the west never had meddled with Greece.

I can imagine him attacking west instead of India, however. Sicily and southern Italy had strong Greek populations, Syracuse was a big Greek city. Why not unite all the Greeks in his empire?
 
Yes butterfly the Indian part, let him return back in Persia earlier, organizing a little his kingdoms (with the weddings of Susa and everything) then departing to West for avenging his uncle and brother-in-law
 
Top