What if Alexander had not died in Babylon and he lives up to his 50's to 60's.
How long would his empire last now? What affects would this have?
How long would his empire last now? What affects would this have?
Last edited:
Alexander the Great lives: How long does his empire last?
- Thread starter Historyman 14
- Start date
It would last his lifetime but even if he left sons it would probably break up thereafter. By then it would probably stretch all the way from Spain to the Punjab, and I just can't see that holding together.
Results - humungous. You've basically got a totally Greek world, with Hellenistic Kingdoms all round the Mediterranean. So even if the Romans manage to conquer it, they are likely to be totally swamped and assimilated by their Greek environment. So European law codes etc will be in Greek rather than Latin, and the whole Medieval period is changed beyond recognition.
I'm not so sure. the Hellenistic world still expanded after Alexander's death in our history, just not as a united state. And the Romans already were assimilated by the Greeks; most important things were studied and written in Greek during the Roman Empire. And even if the empire lasts an additional 30-40 years it's still going to collapse under it's own weight with results pretty identical to what we saw. There's simply no way to administer something that size.
I would normally agree, but part of me would like to point out that Alexander's Empire is mostly composed of the former Achaemenid Persian Empire which itself managed to endure 200 years before Alexander conquered it. So, the fact is that it's possible to administrate the Empire: it depends on how much of the Persian Empire administration Alexander keeps.Escape Zeppelin said:
I'm in the minority, I think that the empire could have lasted in a respectable form for at least a century after Alexander's death. It all depends on who succeeds him and how smoothly it goes. The institution of leadership had to be tested and in OTL it failed but if you give Alexander a long enough life post-India then he can do some much needed tweaking of the Empire, allow the bloodmixing initiatives to bear fruit and maybe quietly retire some generals and keep the armies closer to Ctesiphon Babylon so everyone doesn't get a chance to landgrab at every succession.
I didn't suggest that it would be a united state. But the Kingdoms in North Africa, Spain et al would be Hellenistic kingdoms where the ruling class spoke Greek - and even under the RE, Greek speakers didn't generally change over to Latin. So even if an RE still emerges, it's going to be a lot different from OTL's, and won't have Latin West and Greek East.
Maybe a longer lived Alexanderturns west to conquer Carthage and Rome. Even though the empire probably breaks up when Alexander dies the butterflies have enormous potential.Even if Rome still rises the empire will be far more Hellenised than it was
Carthage for certain. It was the old enemy of the Greeks in Sicily, whom Alexander would surely take under his wing. So once he arrives it's toast. The Romans, if they are smart, will become loyal allies, at least during his lifetime. After that - -
Alexander was planning a campaign in Arabia and then an invasion of Carthage, which likely will also extend to Carthaginian possessions in Spain.
Alexander will keep campaigning, he will keep partying, and eventually one of those two things will probably kill him. See Slydesertfox's recent timeline.
The question is, how much can he do before he dies? While he lives he'll probably go unchallenged on a lot of the major points - he'll keep trying to bind Persians and Makedonians closer together. He'll probably circumnavigate Arabia and eventually he'll make for Megale Hellas and Carthage. If he lives through all of that, he'll probably have a couple sons of a reasonable age, and his opinions on succession will probably be more clear (which means likely no Phillip Arrhaedos) and in general an easier time for all.
I have no idea why you guys think the rise of Rome wouldn't be totally averted by the butterflies - because it would, and even if a city state called Rome did gain power on the Italian peninsula, there's no reason history would play out the same at all.
Eventually, the whole edifice of Alexander's achievements would crumble. There'd probably be at least some sort of civil war on his death, because Makedonian succession was rarely a smooth process, and the prize is so huge. Border regions would ultimately begin to gain independence, particularly if there's a Hellenic satrap in a conquered North Africa. Sooner or later the Empire will fall, probably within a few generations. But that won't mean an end to Hellenic dominion, or forestall the eventual emergence of a Helleno-Persian culture thanks to Alexander's initiatives having longer to take effect.
The question is, how much can he do before he dies? While he lives he'll probably go unchallenged on a lot of the major points - he'll keep trying to bind Persians and Makedonians closer together. He'll probably circumnavigate Arabia and eventually he'll make for Megale Hellas and Carthage. If he lives through all of that, he'll probably have a couple sons of a reasonable age, and his opinions on succession will probably be more clear (which means likely no Phillip Arrhaedos) and in general an easier time for all.
I have no idea why you guys think the rise of Rome wouldn't be totally averted by the butterflies - because it would, and even if a city state called Rome did gain power on the Italian peninsula, there's no reason history would play out the same at all.
Eventually, the whole edifice of Alexander's achievements would crumble. There'd probably be at least some sort of civil war on his death, because Makedonian succession was rarely a smooth process, and the prize is so huge. Border regions would ultimately begin to gain independence, particularly if there's a Hellenic satrap in a conquered North Africa. Sooner or later the Empire will fall, probably within a few generations. But that won't mean an end to Hellenic dominion, or forestall the eventual emergence of a Helleno-Persian culture thanks to Alexander's initiatives having longer to take effect.
fi11222
Banned
I agree that this is the most likely path he would take.
But suppose he does not. Suppose he emerges from his illness a changed man; much more mature and of a steadier disposition. Suppose then that he realizes the obvious, which is that his only chance to endure is to rule as a Persian monarch with macedonian roots and Hellenic soldiers the way the Ptolemies ruled Egypt.
If this happens, I believe that there is convincing case to be made for a Persian-Greek empire enduring with an Alexandrian dynasty at its head for a few centuries (let us say 3, like the Ptolemies). At its heart would be a caste of Hellenic soldiers living within dedicated cities and prevented (by law and custom) to intermingle with the locals. In parallel with that, there would be a Persian civil administration tasked with raising taxes and arbitrating disputes. On the religious/symbolic side, the Alexandrian monarch would be honored Babylonian style in Irak (Akitu celebration and all) and as the Shah-n-Shah within Iran. Among Greek cities, he would be worshiped as a semi-divine hero (exactly as Hellenistic monarchs were IOTL) and in Egypt as Pharaoh. In private with his courtiers and generals, he would play the approachable fellow Hellene in order to massage delicate egos. That arrangement worked well for the Ptolemies. I do not see why it would not work for the Alexandrians provided it is put in place by a competent and reasonably long lived founder (which Alexander would be if indeed his illness had made him more mature).
I believe that the long term results of all this would be:
- Greece absorbed into Persian-administered Middle-East.
- No Rome
- No Christianity
- Western Europe stays a backwater
- Middle-East + Eastern Med. goes into a never-ending succession of dynaties / collapse / new dynasty on the Chinese model.
- Culture remains forever Persiano-Greek, endlessly refined but never wholly overhauled. Stoicism, with a touch of Neoplatonism, would become the ethos of the elite (a sort of Confucian equivalent). Budhism might become important, as it did in China.
- Modernity (capitalism + industry + science) appears slightly later and in Asia instead of Europe. Strongest candidate is Japan.
- Japan colonizes the New World by following the Kuriles and Aleutians.
- Steam engine developped in XXIInd century Korea
- Cold war in the XXIIIrd century between a capitalistic Japano-Zen North America and a communisitic neo-mazdakite Indian Empire after a WWII style world war fought mostly in China and South America.
- On July 20 2269, the neo-mazdakite Indians win the space race when the Xšaθra 11 mission lands a Varenaut on the Moon.
Hehe. I imagine that the long term results are a bit tongue in cheek but I like the word "Varenaut."
And yeah, that does sound like a possible alternative (at least the short term part does). I'd disagree that this means a "backwater" western Europe and instead posit that it just means a more Helleno-Celtic Europe whose culture is significantly different but not really lesser than the Romanized west of OTL.
Definitely we'd see more mystery cults, Stoicism, and Buddhism. Who knows where Celtic religion would have gone if it had been allowed to survive a few more centuries? Plus the likely multipolarity of this world, with fewer unified empires in the west would be cool to explore.
And yeah, that does sound like a possible alternative (at least the short term part does). I'd disagree that this means a "backwater" western Europe and instead posit that it just means a more Helleno-Celtic Europe whose culture is significantly different but not really lesser than the Romanized west of OTL.
Definitely we'd see more mystery cults, Stoicism, and Buddhism. Who knows where Celtic religion would have gone if it had been allowed to survive a few more centuries? Plus the likely multipolarity of this world, with fewer unified empires in the west would be cool to explore.
Not long in my opinion. It was a land based empire without a natural infrastructure. China is largely built along two great rivers, and Rome is built around the Med Sea and Rhine/Danube.
Meanhile, Alexander's Empire is built around the remains of the Persian Empire, with two unconnected seas for borders, and then there's the obvious cultural problems. You also have the strain of the likely future attempts at conquest Alexnader would attempt.
I'd say a couple generations, at best. If Alexander lives long enough that Alexander Aegus comes into power as an adult or near enough, I think there be enough of a bleed over in loyalty that he'll be able to keep the army in support for his lifetime. What happens later, or if that is enough on its own, I don't know.
Meanhile, Alexander's Empire is built around the remains of the Persian Empire, with two unconnected seas for borders, and then there's the obvious cultural problems. You also have the strain of the likely future attempts at conquest Alexnader would attempt.
I'd say a couple generations, at best. If Alexander lives long enough that Alexander Aegus comes into power as an adult or near enough, I think there be enough of a bleed over in loyalty that he'll be able to keep the army in support for his lifetime. What happens later, or if that is enough on its own, I don't know.
fi11222
Banned
I do not think so because Alexander would need to Persianize his Empire to make it last, just like the Ptolemies became Egyptianized.
Rome at this point is a monarchical city state. If Alexander turns West t some point the Macedoians will clash with the Etruscans. Rome may ally with Alexander in which case it survives until the Alexandrian Empire breaks up. Then it may become a contender to develop into a local successor state. In North Africa a Hellenised Carhage successor stat may rise gain to challange a resurgent Rome. I do agree we will see a much greater Hellennic influence in the Western Medditternean as well as in the East. More cultural and trading links will likely be the result of this.
Another question is the military impact. Does the Roman Legion still evolve or does the Phalanx continue as the dominant military doctrine?
Alexander had a direct opposite view to the Ptolemies, believing in syncretism rather than multiculturalism/non-assimilation.
I agree with this. A designated son and heir of Alexander will get extra prestige as the son of the great warrior and the grandson of Zeus, in a way that none of the diadochi did. There are Greek settlements throughout the empire that will continue to grow as long as Alexander is in charge. The forced merging of the upper class will produce a second generation of top officials that depend on the empire for their legitimacy and will seek to uphold it. And Babylon is a fine spot for launching armies to suppress revolts in the Mediterranean, the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. I think it's inevitable that the Indian chunk of his empire breaks off, but Persia, Arabia, the Eastern Med - and maybe even the Western Med - could survive. As you say, you'd need the right personality of his successor though.
I read recently a theory that a major reason why Rome came to dominate Italy and then further wasn't military success (yes, they had it, but so did lots of others before) but allowing conquered peoples to gain Roman citizenship and therefore have a stake in helping the republic (at that time) prosper. If that is the case and it happens ITTL too, then the rise of Rome might be 'inevitable'?
Regarding the legion v phalanx, I think the phalanx would be overtaken by something else, to enable campaigns/conquests/etc to continue in regions where the phalanx wasn't so practical. The legion happened to do this very very well, so it became dominant very quickly. What might happen is that the phalanx survives longer, but only as a part of a 'combined arms' sort of army. After all, that's essentially what Alexander had anyway - his phalanxes didn't make up a great proportion of his armies.