DBWI: Alexander Went East

Alexander was possibly the greatest general who ever lived. Having never lost a battle, his conquests stretched from the Tigris to Gallia and from Aegyptos to Danubia and ushered in a new age in human history. However, what if things were different? What if, instead of getting sidetracked on his great Western Expedition Alexander focused exclusively on the Persians? How would that change the culture and history of Italia and Gallia? Would he be able to defeat the Persians before his untimely demise in Babylon?
 
It was only due to Hamilcar II’s great personal insults (embargo, rejection of acknowledgement, etc) to Alexander that he even decided to go west*. This sufficiently distracted and infuriated him that he left a large portion of his forces with Seleucus in Babylon while he went to attack the Carthaginians.

If it hadn’t taken Alexander so long to pacify the various small states in Italia, southern Gallia**, and Hispania along with Carthage itself Seleucus wouldn’t have raised his forces in rebellion against the Macedonian king.

Of course, we all know how Alexander got an arrow through the eye at Babylon, leading to Seleucus proclaiming himself shahanshah and leaving Macedon and Greece to Alexander’s infant son.

If Alexander had stayed in the East I expect Baktria would have fallen instead of being a thorn in the Seleukids’ side for half a century. I doubt even he could have invaded India, though—elephants, anyone?

OOC:

*Alexander would have needed an impetus to go to the poorer West over the riches of the East

**There’s no reason for Alexander to care about the Celtic tribes in northern Gallia, although the southern Greek cities like Massilia would be worth it
 
The Persians obviously had no good answer to the phalanx, that had been seen in earlier wars, but the Greeks had never been united enough to take advantage of this.

So with a united Greece, and given his success in the west. Alexander would have been very successful against Persia, possibly over-runing the entire empire. And you would have no subordinate generals setting up their own dynasties in the conquered territories, assuming Alexander lived long enough, which admittedly isn't a given due to his lifestyle and his "lead from the front" military style.

The Macedonians still would have gotten Egypt, and Persia of course had vast wealth. They would have "liberated" the Ionian cities instead of the Persians just handing them over by treaty. But I'm not sure if going east was a better move. Outside of Ionia, you didn't have an existing network of Greek cities to serve as a basis for consolidating hellenistic rule. I suppose they could have founded lots of colonies, in culturally incongruous territory. Plus Persia was a loose knit hetrogenous empire that would have been a headache to rule. I doubt the Macedonians could just finish the job and turn west, and the empire woldn't have been as long lasting as the OTL Mediterranean based one.

Of course the interesting question is whether any of the western Mediterranean cities would have used the absence of the Macedonians to rise to prominence.
 
OOC: Doesn’t the prompt imply Alexander turning West after the fall of Persia? He just doesn’t go any farther East than that
 
Top