One tiny mosquito changed history. It bit Alexander the Great, who contracted malaria and died. Had Alex lived 30 more years: There would have been no Roman Empire; Carthage would have lasted 500 more years, the Alexanderan Empire would have directed its attention eastward; Jesus would have lived the same in our timeline, with a Greek-influenced bible, no celibate priests, and possibly no Reformation. Cartheganian ships would have reached the New World maybe 1000 years before Columbus, but the Incas and Mayans would not have been subdued mainly due to gunpowder not being invented yet. The Mayans and Incas surely would have adopted the Old World technology and suddenly would have become powerful forces to be reckoned with throughout the world. There would have been intense competition between the Vikings, Carthagenians and Mayans for control of the area north of present day Mexico.
Alexander the Great lived 30 more years
- Thread starter Electric Earth
- Start date
Actually, quite possibly not. If you look, you see that this is the poor guy's very first post.
On grounds of "Give-a-guy-chance" sentiment, I feel somebody should run with this. Let's take the POD itself:
Rather than assume 30 years, let's just assume Alexander survives at Babylon. The first question is does he keep conquering or does he spend time consolidating his holdings? Most people figure the former, but I've always thought that he'd need to do something to husband everything he's just acquired. Given the revolts in Greece which sprang up after his death in OTL, Alexander's empire is far from secure, even barring the wars of the Diadochii. He might spend some time founding colonies, building roads and cities. In short he tries to drain as much of mainland Greece's population as possible into the former Persian Empire: this will lessen the abilty of the members of the League of Corinth to resist his rule and increase the unity and strength of his new Graeco-Persian realm. This time gives Alexander the ability to train a new army according to new tactics he's learned in his conquests. A few of his generals also take their places as governors of provinces, but none will question Alexander's rule.
As far as the direction of conquest, I think given time Alexander will chose to go Westwards. He knows there are more lands in both directions, but at some point Carthaginian activities in Sicily may offer the opportunity for a new Pan-Hellenic Crusade of Conquest. This war will be far different than the first, since Alexander will have to make use of ships. However, the Greeks of Athens and Corinth will probably like this because they will be enriched as they row in the conquerer's fleet. Alexander thus conquers Sicily and Italy and adds the Greek states there to the League of Corinth. If successful, he presses the advantage and swallows the entire empire of Carthage and continues on to Spain. Again, I think Alexander's impetus in a Westward campaign is to consolidate his holdings vis-a-vis the effects on Greece of such an expedition.
The other major hurdle is the question of succession. Even if Alexander has an heir, how compotent will that heir be at ruling such a far-flung empire? How loyal would the great variety of generals and local rulers remain to a new King? What kind of governance would grow out of the monarchy and the League of Corinth to effectually govern the pan-hellenic domains. In my opinion, unless Alexander has also managed to spend a substantial amount of time building up a bureacracy, the empire will quickly crumble after his death, even with an heir. The heir will not have Alexander's character nor his exploits. Unless he conquers another contintent, which at some point will be very difficult, the empire will splinter.
The hard part of assessing the effects is that they will be either cultural or demographic, and hence prone to all sorts of chaotic variations (the butterfly theory). At the very least, the proposed outline is possible--except perhaps for the necessity of Christianity; far more likely something like Zoroastrianism emerges to unite Greek and Persian nobles.
Rather than assume 30 years, let's just assume Alexander survives at Babylon. The first question is does he keep conquering or does he spend time consolidating his holdings? Most people figure the former, but I've always thought that he'd need to do something to husband everything he's just acquired. Given the revolts in Greece which sprang up after his death in OTL, Alexander's empire is far from secure, even barring the wars of the Diadochii. He might spend some time founding colonies, building roads and cities. In short he tries to drain as much of mainland Greece's population as possible into the former Persian Empire: this will lessen the abilty of the members of the League of Corinth to resist his rule and increase the unity and strength of his new Graeco-Persian realm. This time gives Alexander the ability to train a new army according to new tactics he's learned in his conquests. A few of his generals also take their places as governors of provinces, but none will question Alexander's rule.
As far as the direction of conquest, I think given time Alexander will chose to go Westwards. He knows there are more lands in both directions, but at some point Carthaginian activities in Sicily may offer the opportunity for a new Pan-Hellenic Crusade of Conquest. This war will be far different than the first, since Alexander will have to make use of ships. However, the Greeks of Athens and Corinth will probably like this because they will be enriched as they row in the conquerer's fleet. Alexander thus conquers Sicily and Italy and adds the Greek states there to the League of Corinth. If successful, he presses the advantage and swallows the entire empire of Carthage and continues on to Spain. Again, I think Alexander's impetus in a Westward campaign is to consolidate his holdings vis-a-vis the effects on Greece of such an expedition.
The other major hurdle is the question of succession. Even if Alexander has an heir, how compotent will that heir be at ruling such a far-flung empire? How loyal would the great variety of generals and local rulers remain to a new King? What kind of governance would grow out of the monarchy and the League of Corinth to effectually govern the pan-hellenic domains. In my opinion, unless Alexander has also managed to spend a substantial amount of time building up a bureacracy, the empire will quickly crumble after his death, even with an heir. The heir will not have Alexander's character nor his exploits. Unless he conquers another contintent, which at some point will be very difficult, the empire will splinter.
The hard part of assessing the effects is that they will be either cultural or demographic, and hence prone to all sorts of chaotic variations (the butterfly theory). At the very least, the proposed outline is possible--except perhaps for the necessity of Christianity; far more likely something like Zoroastrianism emerges to unite Greek and Persian nobles.
Faeelin
Banned
I dunno; shortly after Alexander left, the Nanda dynasty in the Ganges region is overthrown, and India gets.. messy for a while.
Would Alexander be able to resist finishing where he left off?
Rockingham
Banned
Alright, since its your first post.... some of this will need to be changed due to butterfly theory, so i'll edit it into an acceptable form....
Alexander survives 30 more years then OTL. Your post suggests invasions of both Italy and to the east. So, Alexander and his heir sieze parts of Arabia, Central Asia and India, confirm their political control, and invade Italy. Cathage participates also. Rome falls. Carthage consildates its control of the west med, and prospers...it will survive long enough to establish trade routes in the Atlantic ocean.
Some Holy guy proclaims itself Messiah, and is widely acknowledged as such(hey, it happened countless times OTL, not just Christ and Mohammed, but various splinter sects). It becomes a religion similar to otl Christianity. He is influenced by a still existing Greek ME state.
Meanwhile in the Americas, development is sped up(although hindered by disease) and any Inca or Maya staes will have an added advantage in TTL.
An earlier and lower intensity scramble for the Americas occurs between old world states.
That was the gist of his post.
Welcome to AH.com, were we will mercillesly tear apart your every post and opinion, spit on it, and humilate you for a minor error
BTW. butterfly effect is something you need to find out about before further posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
It's true that India offers Alexander every opportunity, but from my understanding he has little base in the East from which to launch such a campaign. His supply lines would stretch back across Persia to Mesopotomia at least. At some point, the Persians join the Greeks worrying about how many different kinds of people Alexander can conquer: is he going to adopt "Indian" practices if both groups are protesting?
In anycase, the potential POD is Alexander living a longer life after already returning from the Far East. From Babylon, he can still turn either North or South. He will also face at some point the problem of controling Greece itself, which threw off Macedonian overlordship after Alexander's reign (by the middle of the third century, the Aetolian and Achaean leagues have been around for a while).
Plus, the Greeks of southern Italy and Sicily offer the chance to balance the Persian and Egyptian domains he has already conquered, if his goal is to rule a Greek kingdom.
You're right, that if he starts conquering again, he may very well simply keep going and going until he gets to China, but I think the above stand as reason that for the plausibility of him ending up not having time to do so.
In OTL Alexander tried to conquer more of India but his men refused; they were too far from home and too worn out from the campaign. Any other attempt to conquer India might be difficult, especially since the supply lines are so long.
Butterfly/Mosquito Theory
I feel that comparing the effects of a butterfly's wings to a mosquito injecting malaria into a historical figure is a bit of a stretch. And Butterfly Theory leads to Chaos Theory, and to Fractals and Mandelbrot? Good gosh, what did I step into? As for Alex, he was approaching middle age, and he was probably wanting to "settle down," and run his empire. Italy was split up among Romans, Etruscans, and others. Surely Carthage competed with Alexandria (I'm certain he lent his name to his empire) but the urge or ability to "delete" Carthage didn't happen. And, yes, I'm a greenhorn at writing AH, but I've read Turtledove and others for years; and I gave Alex a lot of thought before writing. (Years ago I wrote a short story about someone who went back in a time machine and killed baby Hitler, and came back to find nobody believed him--and then realized that his girlfriend's parents met in Europe during WW2.....)
I feel that comparing the effects of a butterfly's wings to a mosquito injecting malaria into a historical figure is a bit of a stretch. And Butterfly Theory leads to Chaos Theory, and to Fractals and Mandelbrot? Good gosh, what did I step into? As for Alex, he was approaching middle age, and he was probably wanting to "settle down," and run his empire. Italy was split up among Romans, Etruscans, and others. Surely Carthage competed with Alexandria (I'm certain he lent his name to his empire) but the urge or ability to "delete" Carthage didn't happen. And, yes, I'm a greenhorn at writing AH, but I've read Turtledove and others for years; and I gave Alex a lot of thought before writing. (Years ago I wrote a short story about someone who went back in a time machine and killed baby Hitler, and came back to find nobody believed him--and then realized that his girlfriend's parents met in Europe during WW2.....)
I do not think it is a given the Alexander would defeat Rome. It all depends too on when exactly he goes to war with them.
323 he survives or doesn't get sick. Before he takes on the west he must execute his existing plans for conquering Arabia. How long will this take 2 years or more? He also is in the middle of transforming his army into a copmpletly new war machine. Not just the inclusion of Persians armed in the Macedonian manner but also MUCH more light cavalry and lots more heavy cavalry and the new infantry formations that combine phalanx tactics with missile power.
321 the Caudine Forks still happens but Alexander is nowhere near ready to invade Italy yet. I presume he will want to tackle Carthage first anyway. They are a direct and serious threat to the Greeks in the West and to take on them first would win Alexander immediate allies among the Greeks of Magna Graecia. After all Carthage defeated the Syracusans in 311.
312 Appius Cladius becones censor and in 310 the Romans defeat the Etruscans at Lake Vadimo. They go on to defeat the Samnites in the Second Samnite War in 304. By now (312/10) Alexander may be in position to launch an invasion of Italy before the Romans can consolididate their hold on the peninsula. But there is no reason to suppose that their existing allies would be willing to desert them even in the face of Alexander's invasion.
323 he survives or doesn't get sick. Before he takes on the west he must execute his existing plans for conquering Arabia. How long will this take 2 years or more? He also is in the middle of transforming his army into a copmpletly new war machine. Not just the inclusion of Persians armed in the Macedonian manner but also MUCH more light cavalry and lots more heavy cavalry and the new infantry formations that combine phalanx tactics with missile power.
321 the Caudine Forks still happens but Alexander is nowhere near ready to invade Italy yet. I presume he will want to tackle Carthage first anyway. They are a direct and serious threat to the Greeks in the West and to take on them first would win Alexander immediate allies among the Greeks of Magna Graecia. After all Carthage defeated the Syracusans in 311.
312 Appius Cladius becones censor and in 310 the Romans defeat the Etruscans at Lake Vadimo. They go on to defeat the Samnites in the Second Samnite War in 304. By now (312/10) Alexander may be in position to launch an invasion of Italy before the Romans can consolididate their hold on the peninsula. But there is no reason to suppose that their existing allies would be willing to desert them even in the face of Alexander's invasion.
Rockingham
Banned
While the extent of the butterfly effect is debatable- I don't think anyone hear would think that the Incans and Mayans would still exist, or the Vikings, or that "Jesus" would exist(let alone live a life similar life), although a similar holy man was likely to emerge. His teachings becoming dominat are rather less likely.
The Incas and Mayans Probably Would ...
The New World Should Be Untouched, By Events in The Old ...
With The Vikings and Middle Eastern Holy Men However, All Bets are OFF!
Keenir
Banned
the Mayans pre-date Jesus, actually - many Mayan cities were already existing (some were even abandoned) when Jesus was born.
Rockingham
Banned
Well...
Firstly I read Mayans as Aztecs for some reason.
Secondly, the POD is before Jesus.
Keenir
Banned
fairly easy mistake to make, the media being what they are.
I think the Classical Mayan era started around 800 BC.
Personnaly i think alexander should have stoppen in mesopotamia leaving the persians Iran and its surroundings to Darius.
He Almost Died, Just After Crossing The Hellespont ...
Now THAT'S a Time-Line ...
Anybody, Ever Write that One?
Hapsburg
Banned
Incans, Mayans, and Aztecs would probably still exist. I don't see any reason why not; the new world wasn't effected by the affairs of the old until after the 1400s CE.
Jesus being born is debatable. Depends on if his immediate ancestors still marry, or not. I don't see any reason why they wouldn't, though. He'd definitely have a very different life.
As for the Vikings, I don't know why they wouldn't be around. People settled in the north European regions long before the Greek civilization arose, and the Norse peoples developed totally apart from Alexander's Empire, and weren't really affected by the West until after OTL's Roman Empire fell.
As far as Jesus being born, it's hard to say what would happen without Roman influence in the area. Looking at Jesus' life through the political lens (I don't want to debate religious overtones at the moment) the political climate in Judea is likely very different, so I wonder if Jesus would garner the same following he did OTL.