Alexander's Empire

Alexander’s Empire​

323 BCE – A mosquito in Babylon dies and does not give Alexander the Great malaria[1]. He continues his journey back to Greece.

322 BCE – Chandragupta Maurya conquers the Indo-Gangetic Plains, along with Bengal[2].

321 BCE – Alexander reaches Athens, the capital of the Hellenic League. A vast celebration is held. To prevent a mutiny, which was beginning to break out amongst his men, he decides to prevent any military campaign from occurring over the course of the next five years.

Alexander, along with his many wives obtained over the course of his many conquests[3], sets up a capital at Athens. He hears word of a rising empire in India[4], so any such plans of preventing military campaigns comes to an end. He begins to travel to India, sensing that war is near.

319 BCE – In the wake of the unification of North India, Alexander sends troops to guard holdings in Punjab and Bactria[5].

317-297 BCE – Hellenic-Maurya War. In the beginning, the Maurya take Punjab and most of southern Bactria in Alexander’s first military defeats. In 311 BCE, a truce is called, but in 306 BCE, Chandragupta Maurya takes most northern Bactria[6]. Alexander I, and, following his death, Alexander II (Alexander IV of Macedon), fight against the Maurya in this war, but ultimately loses the majority of Bactria to the Maurya.

[1] – This is, of course, presuming malaria killed Alexander the Great.

[2] – As with OTL.

[3] – It’s when Rome was a small insignificant town, of course everyone practiced polygamy!

[4] – The Maurya Empire, as with OTL, rises.

[5] – Greek name for Afghanistan and parts of Iran.

[6] In OTL, around this time, this war occurs with the Seleucid Empire, but with more land taken by Chandragupta Maurya (up to Central Asia) and a far shorter war. Alexander the Great would not be defeated so easily without the exhaustion Wars of the Diadochi, so the war is longer and far less land is conquered.
 
Last edited:
Nice premise, but Alexander was planning on leaving for a military campaign to Arabia a day or two after his death (obviously he didn't know he was going to die). What changes here that makes him instead go to Athens?
 
A reply

Nice premise, but Alexander was planning on leaving for a military campaign to Arabia a day or two after his death (obviously he didn't know he was going to die). What changes here that makes him instead go to Athens?

What you have got to understand is that his army was going to mutiny against him because they were tired. I doubt he would, in his right mind, invade Arabia. Although he would not know how horrendous such a campaign would be, the seeds of dissent was already down into his army. He knew this and would not invade Ethiopia, instead trying to keep the peace. As you can see, Chandragupta Maurya had other plans.

Even if he decided to invade Arabia, he would have heard about Chandragupta Maurya's unification of North India and set up his defences in Punjab against him as the campaign in Arabia was just beginning.
 
The army was exhausted from their campaigns to the east and all the way back. After having a chance to rest and recuperate, there's no reason to assume they'd be nearly as mutinous. Especially after reinforcements could replace the more discontent elements among the army.

Also, Sparta had already been defeated by Macedon by this point. While Alexander was off conquering Persia, Sparta attempted to attack his forces in greece and were soundly defeated.
 
The army was exhausted from their campaigns to the east and all the way back. After having a chance to rest and recuperate, there's no reason to assume they'd be nearly as mutinous. Especially after reinforcements could replace the more discontent elements among the army.

Be aware that even as they were coming back, there were mutineers. Not to mention that most of the army is made up of Persians who feel that Alexander is a foreign occupier. Alexander would be forced to stop no matter what.

Also, Sparta had already been defeated by Macedon by this point. While Alexander was off conquering Persia, Sparta attempted to attack his forces in greece and were soundly defeated.
You mean Alexander the Great conquered Sparta? How awesome. I guess I will edit the bit about Sparta out. Thanks for the advice.
 
Be aware that even as they were coming back, there were mutineers. Not to mention that most of the army is made up of Persians who feel that Alexander is a foreign occupier. Alexander would be forced to stop no matter what.


You mean Alexander the Great conquered Sparta? How awesome. I guess I will edit the bit about Sparta out. Thanks for the advice.

No, he never conquered Sparta. Spartans were defeated, but Alexander never marched an army into Laconia.

Also, I'm pretty sure the capital for the Hellenic League was Corinth: i.g. the Corinthian League set up by his father.
 
Why did he set up the capital in Athens?:confused: It's not even part of Macedonia or part of his realm. Ctesiphon Alexandria in Egypt and Antioch are all better capitals for the empire. And Babylon already was the capital. Alexander can't control Mesopotamia and everything behind it from Athens.
 
Be aware that even as they were coming back, there were mutineers. Not to mention that most of the army is made up of Persians who feel that Alexander is a foreign occupier. Alexander would be forced to stop no matter what.


There was a demo, which he scotched just by walking into the midst of the demonstrators and tearing a strip off them for their disloyalty. Doesn't sound as if his position was in any danger.

Also, keep in mind that the actual size of Arabia wasn't fully appreciated. Most contemporary maps estimates it at only about half as big as it really was. So it's not likely to arouse the same opposition that a further advance into India did, esp as it is taking them back "homeward" to the Mediterranean, even if by a roundabout route..
 
Be aware that even as they were coming back, there were mutineers. Not to mention that most of the army is made up of Persians who feel that Alexander is a foreign occupier. Alexander would be forced to stop no matter what.

I am disinclined to agree. Could he maintain his consistent pace of conquest? Unlikely. Would he stop any time in the near future? Equally unlikely.

You mean Alexander the Great conquered Sparta? How awesome. I guess I will edit the bit about Sparta out. Thanks for the advice.

Sparta attacked, Antipater, commanding Alexander's forces in Europe crushed them (with the Spartans suffering far more casualties than they inflicted), and then generous terms were offered to Sparta to get them to mind their own business.
 
No, he never conquered Sparta. Spartans were defeated, but Alexander never marched an army into Laconia.

Also, I'm pretty sure the capital for the Hellenic League was Corinth: i.g. the Corinthian League set up by his father.

Why did he set up the capital in Athens?:confused: It's not even part of Macedonia or part of his realm. Ctesiphon Alexandria in Egypt and Antioch are all better capitals for the empire. And Babylon already was the capital. Alexander can't control Mesopotamia and everything behind it from Athens.

There was a demo, which he scotched just by walking into the midst of the demonstrators and tearing a strip off them for their disloyalty. Doesn't sound as if his position was in any danger.

Also, keep in mind that the actual size of Arabia wasn't fully appreciated. Most contemporary maps estimates it at only about half as big as it really was. So it's not likely to arouse the same opposition that a further advance into India did, esp as it is taking them back "homeward" to the Mediterranean, even if by a roundabout route..

Thank you for your advice.

CORRECTIONS

323 BC - Alexander founds a city near where OTL Antioch would have been. He calls the city Alexandrupolis, after the first town he ever founded. This is the capital of his empire.

He begins to invade Arabia, but is brutally beat back in his first defeat.
 
How did the Arabs, a force composed most likely of light cavalry and light infantry, defeat the battled hardened and tested Macedonian phalanx? Remember that, even at the height of Arab power in the the middle ages, they were initially utterly routed in most of their conflicts with the crusader's heavy infantry and heavy cavalry.
 
How did the Arabs, a force composed most likely of light cavalry and light infantry, defeat the battled hardened and tested Macedonian phalanx? Remember that, even at the height of Arab power in the the middle ages, they were initially utterly routed in most of their conflicts with the crusader's heavy infantry and heavy cavalry.

These people are not quite Arabs. They are several Semitic peoples, such as the Nabateans, in the region. This is a millennium before the Islamic Caliphate. In addition, the Romans at the peak of their power were brutally defeated by the Arabs before Islam. This stretched empire could not have possibly defeated the Arabs.
 
How did the Arabs, a force composed most likely of light cavalry and light infantry, defeat the battled hardened and tested Macedonian phalanx? Remember that, even at the height of Arab power in the the middle ages, they were initially utterly routed in most of their conflicts with the crusader's heavy infantry and heavy cavalry.
Well I mean Antigonos did lose to the Nabaetians but that's because he didn't really send more than a token force to try and force them into compliance (which he successfully did anyway).
 
These people are not quite Arabs. They are several Semitic peoples, such as the Nabateans, in the region. This is a millennium before the Islamic Caliphate. In addition, the Romans at the peak of their power were brutally defeated by the Arabs before Islam. This stretched empire could not have possibly defeated the Arabs.

There's a world of difference between a Roman vs. Arab battle and a Alexander-era Macedonian vs. Arab battle. For example, supply lines for the Macedonians would be far better, since they control every area surrounding Arabia minus Ethiopia, while the Romans had only Egypt. Further, the Macedonian political apparatus is in Mesopotamia by this point, far closer to Arabia than Italy is, in the case of the Romans.
 
Before going any further, I suggest the OP takes a look at this book. Written by one of my University lecturers, it gives a quick overview into Alexander, and tries to strip the stories of the Roman-era biases we're used to. The lecturer himself was always one of my favourites during my degree, a real expert in the field.
 
Top