Alexander the Great Alt History

What would happen if Alexander the Great decided to go West and North and conquer italy gaul germania and the area that makes up spain and portugal? Could he do it?
 

scholar

Banned
What would happen if Alexander the Great decided to go West and North and conquer italy gaul germania and the area that makes up spain and portugal? Could he do it?
Yes, and no.

What would be there for him to hold? There was some urbanization in Gaul and Iberia when the Romans and Carthaginians started getting involved, but whatever is there would seem like pittances compared to the east. Their decentralized nature, the lack of any clear infrastructure, and logistical nightmares would probably make him a person whom people surrendered to when he was present, and then reverted as soon as he left outside of the few areas where that mattered. Italy and North Africa are different matters though, and Alexander could reasonably take both. Eastern Spain and Southern Gaul are also possibilities. The frontiers, however, would be pointless. Sooner or later, Alexander would turn east.
 
I am not an expert on Alex, but such a scenario needs massive changes. Geography could answer many of your questions.
Why should he conquer Italy, Gaul and Germania?
I don't know much about Macedonia. But the Persian Empire is the natural rival, whereas Italy is further away, and I doubt, that there is much knowledge about Germania or anything which is worth to conquer in Germania at this point.
You need a stronger Persian Empire, which is at the same time united and to strong for Alex to invade, but still don't want to invade Macedonia and the Greeks again. So fever internal conflicts in the Persian Empire perhaps? (I don't know enough about the internal conflicts to give more information)

You need a naval strategy. I don't know if Alexander is a great Admiral. If you convince enough Greek States, you could perhaps gather a large enough fleet to invade southern Italy (Magna Graecia). Syrakus and Cartharge could be the main rivals in such a scenario. Maybe a victory over them is under the right circumstances possible.
After that, Alex dominates the Western Mediterranean (and perhaps it is therefore possible to control the coastal areas of Spain and Mediterranean France). But I doubt, that his power would reach the inner parts of Spain or France.

But how to govern such an Empire? It seems likely, that many conquered towns are just tributaries or vassals. If someone from the Persian Empire decides to invade Macedonia (if Alex is at this moment somewhere in Spain or Italy), or if some of the more important Greek cities start a rebellion, this construct could fell apart.
 
Yes, and no.

What would be there for him to hold? There was some urbanization in Gaul and Iberia when the Romans and Carthaginians started getting involved, but whatever is there would seem like pittances compared to the east. Their decentralized nature, the lack of any clear infrastructure, and logistical nightmares would probably make him a person whom people surrendered to when he was present, and then reverted as soon as he left outside of the few areas where that mattered. Italy and North Africa are different matters though, and Alexander could reasonably take both. Eastern Spain and Southern Gaul are also possibilities. The frontiers, however, would be pointless. Sooner or later, Alexander would turn east.
So basically Italy and North Africa can be taken and maybe East spain and southern gaul. Everything else is a logistical nightmare.
 

scholar

Banned
So basically Italy and North Africa can be taken and maybe East spain and southern gaul. Everything else is a logistical nightmare.
Yes, Italy and North Africa had the Tyrrhenian Sea trade axis, while older Iberian trade routes were first established by the Phoenicians. Both sectors were well connected by maritime routes and had a long history of connectivity. Mercenaries from Gaul, Iberia, Africa, Sicily, Italy, and the Eastern Mediterranean regularly fought against one another in this or that theater of conflict, and they were starting to coalesce into states at this time.
 
"Let's go west, where nothing apart from a few city-states exist instead of the huge-ass wealth empire to the east!"

"Okay!"
 
Sly and Scholar at the time of Alexander what were the strongest Natives/States/Groups in Italy? And of them which would last the longest if Alexander invaded Italy?
 
Sly and Scholar at the time of Alexander what were the strongest Natives/States/Groups in Italy? And of them which would last the longest if Alexander invaded Italy?
At around the time of Alexander Syracuse the pre-eminent state in eastern Sicily, while Tarentum still held sway over Magna Graecia. The ethnic diversity of pre-Roman dominated Italy is just insane though. Suffice it to say, the Romans and Samnites were battling for control of Campania. Rome had heavy influence in Etruria in this time, but they did not dominate the region and the Etruscans would play a role in the Second and Third Samnite Wars. North/North East of them were the various Gallic tribes in the Po Valley and in the north of Picenum.

There's also dozens of smaller groups, like the Lucanians, Bruttians, Apulians (made up of three separate tribes), Marsii, Volsci, Messapians, Umbrians, Picenites, among others.
 

scholar

Banned
Sly and Scholar at the time of Alexander what were the strongest Natives/States/Groups in Italy? And of them which would last the longest if Alexander invaded Italy?
The Greeks in the South of Italy and Sicily, predominately Syracuse, Carthage, and the Etruscan were the most powerful naval states in the entire western Mediterranean. The Greeks and the Etruscans, however, were fragmented and rarely cooperated with one another. Syracuse was typically limited to affairs in Sicily, fighting wars to standstills against Carthage. Rome was rising, but still in the midst of the Samnite Wars depending on when this takes place. So, this is before they broke out and started exerting hegemonic forces in Italy. The Gallic peoples in the North were notoriously difficult for Rome to pacify, but that was more to do with their disorganization than anything else.

It is interesting to note that Carthage and Rome had cordial relations at the time though, so Alexander would probably have to face a coalition, rather than on a simple 1 v 1 style war.

So... basically what Sly said... However who would last the longest? Probably an insignificant partner resisting in a remote area, or one that sought a nonaggression treaty with Alexander and did not actively go to war with him.
 
Last edited:

Skallagrim

Banned
As others have noted, getting Alexander to go west in the first place is rather tricky. Carthage, Megale Hellas and the Greek cities on the western shores of the Med would be worth having, but how are they in any way comparable to the great wealth of the east? Also, the timing was exactly right for an eastern expedition. Alexander knew that, and he had his father's well-prepared army at his command. If he would go west first, there would be the risk (in fact, I'd call it a near certainty) that the Akhaimenid Empire would be in a better position than it was when Alexander invaded in OTL. The western states were no threat at all, so there's no reason to go west first.

The only possibility I can see is that Alexander I of Epeiros, Alexander's uncle (and brother-in-law), somehow persuades him to join in his planned Italian expedition, instead of heading east.
 
There's no particular reason he couldn't go West after finishing with the East. After all, he was planning to invade Arabia - how long do you reckon he'd have waited around before deciding that Carthage (and thence Spain and Italy) also deserved his attention?
Of course, the problem with that is he dies! And I don't just mean at Babylon in 323BC - I mean the dude was an irreplaceable genius-level commander, superb warrior, and god-king with a serious personality cult who loved to be in the front line of battle. Even if he survives his fever/poisoning in Babylon, how long does it take before he gets killed in a battle somewhere? Or straight up pisses off the Macedonians by being an arrogant sod to the extent that someone (Krateros?) murders him? Unless you go full ASB and have Athena-espy visit him in a dream and tell him to stop being a dick, it's not gonna happen.

Saying that, I saw an interesting suggestion on a timeline a while back to make Alexander actually live a reasonable life-span. Cripple him.
Seriously, if Alexander gets, say, his right-hand cut off in a battle (and survives the resultant horrible trauma/illness/etc), he now can't fight in the battles, so you take him out of the danger zone. This might also temper his arrogance a little - he knows, for a fact, he's not invincible. Perhaps, with a lot of luck, you could end up with an Alexander who not only wants to conquer more (as it's the only 'fighting' he can now do), but is also a little more interested in setting up permanency (for his sons) too, as he sees he can't be around for ever.
More than that (and this is my favourite part), you'd end up with a seriously pissed off Alexander. Can you imagine how apocalyptic his wrath would be when he sees he can no longer be the best in everything? Frankly, I would feel kind of sorry for the poor Italians.
 
There's no particular reason he couldn't go West after finishing with the East. After all, he was planning to invade Arabia - how long do you reckon he'd have waited around before deciding that Carthage (and thence Spain and Italy) also deserved his attention?
Of course, the problem with that is he dies! And I don't just mean at Babylon in 323BC - I mean the dude was an irreplaceable genius-level commander, superb warrior, and god-king with a serious personality cult who loved to be in the front line of battle. Even if he survives his fever/poisoning in Babylon, how long does it take before he gets killed in a battle somewhere? Or straight up pisses off the Macedonians by being an arrogant sod to the extent that someone (Krateros?) murders him? Unless you go full ASB and have Athena-espy visit him in a dream and tell him to stop being a dick, it's not gonna happen.

Saying that, I saw an interesting suggestion on a timeline a while back to make Alexander actually live a reasonable life-span. Cripple him.
Seriously, if Alexander gets, say, his right-hand cut off in a battle (and survives the resultant horrible trauma/illness/etc), he now can't fight in the battles, so you take him out of the danger zone. This might also temper his arrogance a little - he knows, for a fact, he's not invincible. Perhaps, with a lot of luck, you could end up with an Alexander who not only wants to conquer more (as it's the only 'fighting' he can now do), but is also a little more interested in setting up permanency (for his sons) too, as he sees he can't be around for ever.
More than that (and this is my favourite part), you'd end up with a seriously pissed off Alexander. Can you imagine how apocalyptic his wrath would be when he sees he can no longer be the best in everything? Frankly, I would feel kind of sorry for the poor Italians.
The logical response to this is Alexander took an arrow to the lung, nearly died as a result, and was likely much physically weaker as a result of it, and that did not convince him to slow down a little (though it might have been one of the factors convincing him he has to start paying some attention to ruling and creating a succession). I don't think there's anything that can keep Alexander from the front lines.
 
The logical response to this is Alexander took an arrow to the lung, nearly died as a result, and was likely much physically weaker as a result of it, and that did not convince him to slow down a little (though it might have been one of the factors convincing him he has to start paying some attention to ruling and creating a succession). I don't think there's anything that can keep Alexander from the front lines.

I have a feeling it might have been your timeline where I saw that idea...

In any case, I did say a lot of luck. But, with ancient medicine being what it is, if Alexander loses his right-hand in battle, he's out of action for months, and will never be as good as he was - it's not an issue of age or infirmity, it's simply he's bloody crippled! I reckon there's reasonable odds even Alexander might be forced not to fight in the front-lines; getting him not to turn up at all is out of the question. Frankly, I'd be impressed if we can keep him out of the damn 2nd line.
 
So basically Italy and North Africa can be taken and maybe East spain and southern gaul. Everything else is a logistical nightmare.

While I mostly agree with what has been said already, I think its important to consider that he would not need to take ALL of the Mediterranian coast. If Alexander wanted the riches of the Mediterranian for his empire all he had to do was conquer Southern Greece, Sicily, and above all, Carthage (which he planned to do anyway). If the whole Mediterranian is dominated by a singular (Greek) power, then he can extract tribute and tax trade from all the greek, phoenician and italian cities and colonies of the northern coast. That is not THAT much of a logistical nightmare, at least not much more than the rest of the Alexandrian empire already was. In a few decades after this "Greek peace" has been stablished, someone will have to deal with Rome, though.
 
Last edited:
Would the boot of Italy be in Alexander's reach? It wouldn't be as important as taking Syracuse or Carthage, but I could see it serving as a useful base for striking into the Roman heartland if they ever got too big for their britches.

It would also seem that even without Italy, the empire would still be in a good position to control trade with the east, assuming it lasts long enough to benefit from its control of the eastern Mediterranean.
 
Top