Alexander the great lives 5 or 10 years longer

What would be the impact if Alexander the great lived 5 or 10 years longer

What conquests could he make if he lived 5 or 10 years longer

Would he be able to establish a succession plan which would allow his son to take over
 
He planned on returning his army to Greece before consolidating his imperial power in Babylon. After that he wanted to invade Arabia. Alexander did have a son but by the time he dies the new king will be just a boy, so a regent would rule instead.
 
Is it likely for his son to still be killed and/or the regent loses control ?

It's possible that there will be a power struggle to see who'll become regent in the first place. It isn't guaranteed that Alexander's empire won't collapse after his death like in OTL, only later.
 
5 to 10 years means he can just keep conquering stuff and leaving the actual ruling to his regents. Pretty sure he would not go back to India. He had given up or at least his army had.

Arabia could be annoying to conquer since there would be tribal warfare like in Afghanistan but with no mountains and a lot more sand. The best land at the time was in Yemen I think and that is at the other end of the Peninsula.

Carthage is rich but unless Alexander spends a fortune on a navy, he will have to take the long way around through North Africa. The Balkans are an unknown. I guess if he wanted he could find the mines of Dacia centuries early but that might be ASB since we know they're there but he has no clue they're there. He can only conquer stuff he knows about, and this thread has a time limit on his lifespan anyway.

Italy is rich, nearby to Greece, and lacks naval issues Carthage would have. We could see Alexander trying to conquer Southern and central Italy from the Romans or at least his son might attempt it if he kicks the bucket before then.
 
Alexander had lost all momentum when he retreated from India, Italy and Carthage would have been a logistical nightmare to invade and conquer, and Alexander was already facing severe unrest from his troops. Had he lived 5 or 10 years longer, the wars of the Diadochi would have still happened, his empire was far too large and his lieutenants far too powerful, perhaps their outcome might change, but the empire will end up fractioned regardless.
 
Is it likely for his son to still be killed and/or the regent loses control ?
Unlikely to have the OTL scenario as with Alexander living longer a) a lot of children would be already born by the weddings of Susa b) likely Stateira and Parysatis would have given children to Alexander so Alexander's heir would not be the son of Roxane and his mother would have a political powerbase in Persia, as heiress of the Partian Empire, supporting her and her son (while Roxane OTL missed that and was totally dependent by Alexander's generals)...

The line of succession of Alexander would be seen first the children of Stateira (likely Alexander's chosen Queen), then the ones of Parysatis with any children of Roxane only after them and a son of Roxane would have been forced to marry a daughter of Stateira/Parysatis for being able to inhereit (or missing them an half-persian daughter of Hephaistion or Krateros would be needed as Queen Consort)
 
Alexander had lost all momentum when he retreated from India, Italy and Carthage would have been a logistical nightmare to invade and conquer, and Alexander was already facing severe unrest from his troops. Had he lived 5 or 10 years longer, the wars of the Diadochi would have still happened, his empire was far too large and his lieutenants far too powerful, perhaps their outcome might change, but the empire will end up fractioned regardless.
Not really. OTL his main problem was who his natural choice as regent died before him, his second choice at the time of his death was in the worst possible position aka in the middle of a journey between Persia and Macedonia and his only heir was born from the wrong mother, plus his Queen, likely pregnant with his true heir, was killed on order of one of his lieutenants and his pregnant junior wife who plotted for the power. Take away that disaster and Alexander's empire will likely survive (maybe Greece and Macedonia will go tho Philip Arrhidaeus and Adea Eurydice but the loss will stop there)
 
As said, the logistics were too impossible for any further conquest, and the best he can do is consolidate what he has, which I doubt he can. At best he can leave a direct successor for what in history became the Seleucid Empire, since Alexander wanted to make Babylon his capital if I'm not wrong, but it is definitely fracturing along the lines of how it happened in reality, losing the majority of the Bactrian territories and all the Indian gains, and only remaining with Iran, Iraq and Syria-Palestine while his generals retain the Egyptian, Balkan and Asia Minor portions.
 
Not really. OTL his main problem was who his natural choice as regent died before him, his second choice at the time of his death was in the worst possible position aka in the middle of a journey between Persia and Macedonia and his only heir was born from the wrong mother, plus his Queen, likely pregnant with his true heir, was killed on order of one of his lieutenants and his pregnant junior wife who plotted for the power. Take away that disaster and Alexander's empire will likely survive (maybe Greece and Macedonia will go tho Philip Arrhidaeus and Adea Eurydice but the loss will stop there)

His regent was Perdiccas, who received Alexander’s signet ring on his deathbed, in Babylonia. Alexander’s immediate problem at his death was that his son was too young to fend for himself, his brother was mentally incapable, and the most effective and trustworthy of his lieutenants, Eumenes, was a Greek, who never truly managed to inspire loyalty to his troops, while all the others opposed the regency to hold their own portion of the empire. And when things could still have been salvaged after Perdiccas’ death, Antipater ruined everything by bypassing his son and giving the regency to Polyperchon.

I believe much of the fate of Alexander’s empire if he gets to live longer depends on the character of his heir, provided he’s old enough to rule, nevertheless, Egypt, Greece and Bactria would be inevitably lost within a century if not less.
 
His regent was Perdiccas, who received Alexander’s signet ring on his deathbed, in Babylonia. Alexander’s immediate problem at his death was that his son was too young to fend for himself, his brother was mentally incapable, and the most effective and trustworthy of his lieutenants, Eumenes, was a Greek, who never truly managed to inspire loyalty to his troops, while all the others opposed the regency to hold their own portion of the empire. And when things could still have been salvaged after Perdiccas’ death, Antipater ruined everything by bypassing his son and giving the regency to Polyperchon.

I believe much of the fate of Alexander’s empire if he gets to live longer depends on the character of his heir, provided he’s old enough to rule, nevertheless, Egypt, Greece and Bactria would be inevitably lost within a century if not less.
Alexander signet ring was not destined to Perdiccas as Alexander's last word about the regency can be interpreted either as "to the strongest" (the traditional version) or "to Krateros" so in both cases Perdiccas has taken the signet ring not recevied it for himself from Alexander, plus Alexander's son was not yet born at the time of his death (one of the reason for which Arrhidaeus was named king by the macedonian army together with the eventual son of Roxane)
 
Alexander signet ring was not destined to Perdiccas as Alexander's last word about the regency can be interpreted either as "to the strongest" (the traditional version) or "to Krateros" so in both cases Perdiccas has taken the signet ring not recevied it for himself from Alexander, plus Alexander's son was not yet born at the time of his death (one of the reason for which Arrhidaeus was named king by the macedonian army together with the eventual son of Roxane)

We’ll never know the truth about that, perhaps it was for Perdiccas, perhaps it was for Craterus, perhaps Alexander didn’t even care and became embittered by his own early demise, thing is, Perdiccas officially became Regent, and Craterus joined the coalition against him, further endangering the dynasty.
 
A clear heir with a local power base in Persia and a designated regent will do much in saving Alexander’s Empire and the OTL’s situation was so unlucky to be almost ASB
 
Carthage is rich but unless Alexander spends a fortune on a navy, he will have to take the long way around through North Africa. The Balkans are an unknown. I guess if he wanted he could find the mines of Dacia centuries early but that might be ASB since we know they're there but he has no clue they're there. He can only conquer stuff he knows about, and this thread has a time limit on his lifespan anyway.
First, no he wouldn't actually need an especially strong navy, except in transport, once he gets a major army into Sicily. From there, it actually only takes about a day for a large fleet to sail from Sicily to Carthage, and galley based navies are not able to exercise continuous command of the sea, as their logistical demands limit how long they can stay away from their home ports in strength. Second, in the roughest possible figures, Alexander is sitting on perhaps seven times the wealth of Carthage [Achaemenid empire annual tribute estimated at something like 14,000 talents per year vs 2000 for Carthage] and all the shipbuilding resources of Phoenicia, Egypt, and Asia Minor, not to mention Greek fleets. Powerful fleets are definitely within his means regardless.
 
IMO, a longer lived Alexander is like Nader Shah, and the illness he caught in India, the constant campaigning and alcoholism turn him into a mad tyrant and a poor general.

The guy did not have the right stuff to be a good ruler and his conquerlust had already begun to exceed the material limitations of his army.

The real question is, does he self destruct so badly that he leaves no heir and not enough pieces for an heir to pick up afterwards? Or does he pass on a battered, exhausted, but mostly whole empire to whoever succeeds him? Or is it something in between, with Diodachi stirring the pot for good measure?

fasquardon
 
First, no he wouldn't actually need an especially strong navy, except in transport, once he gets a major army into Sicily. From there, it actually only takes about a day for a large fleet to sail from Sicily to Carthage, and galley based navies are not able to exercise continuous command of the sea, as their logistical demands limit how long they can stay away from their home ports in strength. Second, in the roughest possible figures, Alexander is sitting on perhaps seven times the wealth of Carthage [Achaemenid empire annual tribute estimated at something like 14,000 talents per year vs 2000 for Carthage] and all the shipbuilding resources of Phoenicia, Egypt, and Asia Minor, not to mention Greek fleets. Powerful fleets are definitely within his means regardless.
I would even reverse it and say that at the time of Alexander's death OTL, Carthage is the one starting from a position of naval disadvantage. The Diadochi Wars featured plenty of large fleet battles and they rapidly developed larger ships which outpaced Carthage's shipbuilding industry.
 
First, no he wouldn't actually need an especially strong navy, except in transport, once he gets a major army into Sicily. From there, it actually only takes about a day for a large fleet to sail from Sicily to Carthage, and galley based navies are not able to exercise continuous command of the sea, as their logistical demands limit how long they can stay away from their home ports in strength. Second, in the roughest possible figures, Alexander is sitting on perhaps seven times the wealth of Carthage [Achaemenid empire annual tribute estimated at something like 14,000 talents per year vs 2000 for Carthage] and all the shipbuilding resources of Phoenicia, Egypt, and Asia Minor, not to mention Greek fleets. Powerful fleets are definitely within his means regardless.

Iirc didn't Syracuse lay siege to Carthage abt 306BC?

If a pipsqueak power like that could get to the city gates, it's pretty absurd to suggest that Alexander couldn't. And once he's there, it's just a question of how long the siege takes.
 
Was the availability of Oliver Stone's 'final cut' of Alexander on Netflix the inspiration for this thread?
 
Top