Alexander the Great doesn't Die?

There was actually an extinct sub-species of Syrian elephant, but these guys were smaller than the Indian ones so used less by the Diadochi, if at all. They went extinct by the end of the classical period, I believe.
without looking it up, i'd imagine that was for similar reasons to the North African breed
 
I know it's like the oldest question in alternate history, but what would have happened had Alexander the Great hadn't died in Babylon at the age of 32? Would he continue to expand eastward? Would he give up on Asia and turn back west, conquering Italy? Would he be assassinated if he hadn't died?

Would history really have played out any differently had he lived a few more years?

His troops were suffering from attrition, I doubt there would be much more expansion
 
Arabia was certainly his first order of business.
Then, he might either head West, or give a second try at India. In both areas I think he'd face serious challenges. In the West, mostly because he, being Alexander, could overreach; let's say he takes Carthage and Sicily (which is probably possible), do you think he'd resist walking on the westernmost shores of the known world, if not for prestige reasons? He'll probably try to go all the way to the Atlantic. He might even manage to do that and get his overlordship somewhat recognized by Maurians, Iberians and other local peoples, but it would not be a walkover.
Italy might be tough, but there are Greek cities there, and probably he'd want to "protect" them and impose some sort of suzerainty over the Italics. If he does not make excessive demands, he could get that, although Rome and the Samnites both would not take that kindly.
India is a much harder proposition. Indus valley may be realistic, but anything beyond that would mean logistical and political challanges that he probably wouldn't be able to overcome (and there's the different disease enviroment too). Moreover, in India he could face a general may outclass him, younger, and with roughly equivalent resources at his disposal. Now, I guess that in terms of military history, Alexander vs. Chandragupta is probably the battle.
Politically, his Empire was overstreched as is IOTL; it would be difficult to keep the Macedonian generalship on a short leash because of sheer distances. Rebellions would be a common problem. He'd need to expand the powerbase, which he sort of realized when he tried to integrate the Persian aristocracy into it, but was not taken kindly by the Macedonians or the Greeks. The Greek city-states too are a problem - a lot of them weren't exactly fond of Macedonia to begin with.
It may be worth noting that the Kingdom of the Cimmerian Bosphorus had a civil war around 310 BC. That could offer Alexander a neat chance to meddle in the Black sea region if he lives that long.
 
Any idea Alexander had of continuing his conquests ignores that he had territory in the here and now to keep and protect, and honestly Macedonian Kingship was too personal - a problem that maybe only the Ptolemies really resolved (which wasn't necessarily a good thing, since it allowed a chain of idiot inbred rulers.)

Macedonian kingship depended on the man who was King, the personality of the ruler. But the ruler couldn't be everywhere in an empire - he had to focus.

It would be awesome to see a continued conquest... but I can't see it working well for anyone, including Alexander's otherwise perfect legacy.
 

luiji79

Banned
TOMB OF AMPHIPOLIS

Greek and the western civilization had problems with east (DARIOS) so I believe it was the first choice of Alexander to attack him.It was a strategic move because if he hadn't attack ,the Persians would have started war with Greece.Perhaps he wouldn't have started conquering the west world I assume.But he died so the question won't be answered.THE GREEKS HAVE FOUND THE LARGEST GREEK ANCIENT TOMB, IN AMPHIPOLIS NOWDAYS ,THEY HAVE FOUND 3 DAYS AGO A SKELETON WITH HEIGHT 1,65M(Alexander's height) AND THEY HAVE SENT HIM FOR DNA ANALYSIS.AN EXCELLENT SITE WITH LATEST NEWS NUMEROUS PHOTOS FOLLOWING THE EXCAVATIONS AND MY FAVOURITE IS THIS ONE MOD DELETE
VERY GOOD CONTENT.I WISH THAT AT LAST THEY HAVE FOUND HIM.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it's viable that Alexander, had he lived another twenty years, could have taken the Arabian and Mediterranean coasts. I also agree with others that his Empire could not entirely hold together.

A prudent successor could have held much of it together thought: The Mediterranean basin, Arabia and Persia are all in easy reach of a Babylon capital. With a wealthier treasury than anyone else, a good navy and a dominant standing army revolts could be put down. They'd have to give up central Asia and northwest India, however, because those areas are just unrealistic to hold. Especially the latter, considering its population.
 
Top