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.