Hellenistic period with Alexander the Great living to old age

[33k7]

let's say Alexander the Great doesn't get sick at all and live to The Ripe old age of 96

what do you think the consequences of this are like how long do you think the Macedonian Empire would last Etc




I do not believe Alexander the Great could go on and invade the West I think he would be stuck in Middle East putting down rebellions and invading Nations there to secure his borders I think the myth of Alexander the Great we'll make risk of large-scale rebellion small but after his death I think it will become a more prevalent thing

 

[Daylight Savings]

If he lives that long the risk of large scale rebellions after his death would likely be much smaller. With six more decades of rule the entire fighting age population and most of their parents would have known nothing but life as part of Alexander's empire. Unless you weer already seeing sizable and frequent rebellions then would be rebels would have lived an entire life of stability and prosperity as part of this Hellenistic empire, why try to leave?

 

[Vinization]

That is a VERY old age, and if I recall correctly Alexander didn't have the healthiest lifestyle. Didn't he drink lots of alcohol? I suppose he could make it into his seventies/eighties if he was lucky (Seleucus made it to 77, and would've lived a couple years longer had he not been mudered).

 

[Skallagrim]

There would be no rebellions in the Eastern empire; there were none in OTL, not even after he'd just conquered the place and then marched on in the general direction of India. The rebellions were among the Greeks, and then only because there were false rumours of his death. The premature uprising had ended horribly, and when Alexander really died, you see that the Greeks did nothing until they were absolutely sure that he was really gone this time. And in Persia? No rebellions upon his death. Wide-spread mourning. The mother of the Emperor he had overthrown starved herself to death in mourning for Alexander. He was admired in Persia. Which is no surprise, since he was a liberator to most satraps: he lowered taxes and he took a hands-off approach. The only thing he didn't tolerate was corruption and fleecing of the populace. But other than that, the satraps had broad discretion under his reign.

Then there are the supposed invasions. I doubt those would materialise. The real contended would be Chandragupta, who was a cautious and canny ruler. He took the eastern satrapies in OTl because the Diadokhoi were fighting in the West, and Seleukos couldn't do anything about Chandragupta's blatant land-grab. In the ATL, Alexander can do something about it. Why would Chandragupta start a war like that? He simply took the easiest road to new gains in OTL. If he does the same in the ATL, that means not invading Alexander's empire, but instead focusing his attention on the parts of India he hasn't conquered yet. So he'd do what Ashoka did in OTL, but earlier.

Alexander, therefore, is quite secure, and will most certainly undertake a campaign in the West.

After his death: @Daylight Savings has the right of it. If Alexander lives to be 96 (or even 76, which would be more credible), his reign will be among the longest and most prosperous in recorded history. By then, the simple tax revenue of his many conquests (including his conquest of Arabia, which he was actively preparing, so that was definitely happening) would have long since earned back the costs of the campaigns to conquer them. Control of all meaningful East-West trade (both overland and oceanic) would have made Alexander's empire ludicrously wealthy. Literally everybody would be under the distinct impression that the God-Emperor Alexander had brought about the Golden Age. He'd have a 100% approval rating. Unless his heir is the most incompetent moron ever, the dynasty is as secure as any dynasty can ever be.

 

[GodEmperorG]

That is a VERY old age, and if I recall correctly Alexander didn't have the healthiest lifestyle. Didn't he drink lots of alcohol? I suppose he could make it into his seventies/eighties if he was lucky (Seleucus made it to 77, and would've lived a couple years longer had he not been mudered).

Macedonians in general drank a lot, and boy did those drinking parties cause trouble. One of them during his dad Philips time led to a fight between the two that might have been the catalyst for Alexander's mom having Philip assassinated (this is the party where Alexander famously said to his drunken father who tripped trying to smack him " This is the man who's going to take you from Greece to Persia? He can't even make it from one couch to the next. "). The other famous drinking party I can think off the top of my head led to Persepolis being burned down by a bunch of rowdy drunken Macedonians and Alexander enticed into it by an Athenian whore.

Point is, if Alexander lives past whatever killed him OTL, one of these drunken extravaganzas is likely to do him in. I'm honestly surprised these parties didn't kill more people.

 

[Brahman]

Rise of Mauryans was becoming inevitable, If Alexander went as per plan to conquer Arabia, Rome, Cartage and Iberia, he will be too far west that Mauryans can easily snatch away North West India and Afghanistan,

 

[33k7]

here is my take on it

yes Alexander will make his Empire extremely wealthy that's a given but with wealth comes problems paying for an army to Garrison the borders paying for patrols to protect trade routes paying for a Navy to protect the coastline and protect trade maintaining the city's maintaining roads building cities building roads
this is going to take a lot of time to establish and let's also not forget there's going to be a lot of tax revenue going to Macedonia and Greece to maintain the support of his homeland as well as support of his army which to be honest was about ready to just walk home

Alexander was heading back to Babylon to establish a stable Rule and to build a new Army his father Philip spent most of his life just building an army

if I remember correctly Alexander maintain the same leadership positions as the Persians did over their lands so the aristocrats underneath the emperor will become ridiculously wealthy as well wealth provides power and with power people think they can do anything by the time Alexander is in his 60s there are going to be problems this might end up like the French Kingdom where the king had little to no power over the Lords of his land and by the time of his death he's only maintaining power via a uneasy Alliance of Nobles that are too afraid to go against the undefeatable general at the time of his death if his son is still alive at 63 he will most likely pass away soon after the butterflies come in after this

this basically sums up my views on the western campaign he could get away with Arabia maybe but that's it

Rise of Mauryans was becoming inevitable, If Alexander went as per plan to conquer Arabia, Rome, Cartage and Iberia, he will be too far west that Mauryans can easily snatch away North West India and Afghanistan,

 

[Lalli]

Alexander living such old age is really implausible. Him had pretty unhealth lifestyle, much of enemies and he liked lead war trips personally. Futhermore stress over kingship would eat his health. Living at age of 69 would be more realistic and plausible thing.

So let say that Alexander lives 30 years if OP allows changing of his question. Alexander probably succesfully would conquer Arabia and Carthage. India he hardly try again or at least it would be failure again. He might too try conquest of Rome. These he would be able to do even faster than in 30 years. Assuming that he is not assassinated or killed on battle he would use rest of his life integrating his conuqests. Longer living Alexander might help keep his empire together longer. That would has such butterflies that history would be totally unrecognsible.

 

[Socrates]

With a capital in Babylon, he is in a short march and boat trip to put down any rebellion in the Med, Red Sea or Persian Gulf. The dangerous rebellions are in central Asia and India, which I think will get independence in his lifetime or shortly afterwards. The former areas could become a part of a core cultural area, especially if his efforts to integrate the nobilities of the places he conquered across them.

 

[Silver01]

Alexander will not be able to respond while the mayran empire is conquering the north west of india ,as his men were tired of war and he had to consolidate first also him loosing or killing his army in the Gedrosia would helped , will be distracted by the Maurya if he is on the west its worse as he would have to leave to face Chandragupta Maurya the battles against the Malians and other Indian chiefdoms were some of the costliest of Alexanders campaign, Chandragupta Maurya will have an empire that is larger , has more wealth and man powered compared to it , Chandragupta Maurya did use guerilla warfare so even if alexander beats him in an open battle he can just drag the war on , Alexander being the egomanaic that he was would not stop unless another mutiny forced him to leave Alexander could waste potential years of if not more than a decade in india and an accomplish nothing .

 

[Duke of Orlando]

IMO to answer this question we really need to answer another question that’s central to Alexander’s character. Can he ever be satisfied?

Alexander isn’t dumb so it’s not like he’d leave the Indian border and the Iranian plateau unguarded when he went galavanting Westward so Chandragupta likely focuses on easier fish. So just for the sake of argument let’s assume he conquers Arabia, Carthage, and Italy to the in 5-10 years which seems reasonable baring any large setbacks in between. His empire is one of the richest in the world controlling essentially every major East West trade route.

What does he do now? Go to Babylon and focus on building an empire and uniting the Greek, Persian, Egyptian, and various other cultures? It doesn’t seem likely in my opinion. It doesn’t really fit his character. He’ll never be satisfied and in the mood to stop campaigning imo. Where he goes I don’t know. Maybe he chases the riches of the amber road, maybe he tries to vassalize and civilize the Balkan tribes, maybe he goes south after Subsaharan gold if that’s a thing at that point, maybe he sees Gaul and Hispania as places in need of conquering and colonizing, maybe he goes for round two in India. Regardless I think he ends up dead on some battlefield somewhere before he dies of natural causes. And when that happens the empire is just as likely to shatter as it did otl. Yeah his kids might take the biggest piece this time around as adults but it still shatters. To many ambitious generals, to many cultures, to stretched an empire, to many neighbors eying his frontier provinces.

I write this as someone who likes Alexander a lot as a figure. But the fact is he’s the great man holding the house of cards up. Without him at least some of it come crashing down.

And all of this is with the assumption Chandragupta just doesn’t think poking the bear is worth it. Which is by no means sure.

 

[Silver01]

IMO to answer this question we really need to answer another question that’s central to Alexander’s character. Can he ever be satisfied?

Alexander isn’t dumb so it’s not like he’d leave the Indian border and the Iranian plateau unguarded when he went galavanting Westward so Chandragupta likely focuses on easier fish. So just for the sake of argument let’s assume he conquers Arabia, Carthage, and Italy to the in 5-10 years which seems reasonable baring any large setbacks in between. His empire is one of the richest in the world controlling essentially every major East West trade route.

What does he do now? Go to Babylon and focus on building an empire and uniting the Greek, Persian, Egyptian, and various other cultures? It doesn’t seem likely in my opinion. It doesn’t really fit his character. He’ll never be satisfied and in the mood to stop campaigning imo. Where he goes I don’t know. Maybe he chases the riches of the amber road, maybe he tries to vassalize and civilize the Balkan tribes, maybe he goes south after Subsaharan gold if that’s a thing at that point, maybe he sees Gaul and Hispania as places in need of conquering and colonizing, maybe he goes for round two in India. Regardless I think he ends up dead on some battlefield somewhere before he dies of natural causes. And when that happens the empire is just as likely to shatter as it did otl. Yeah his kids might take the biggest piece this time around as adults but it still shatters. To many ambitious generals, to many cultures, to stretched an empire, to many neighbors eying his frontier provinces.

I write this as someone who likes Alexander a lot as a figure. But the fact is he’s the great man holding the house of cards up. Without him at least some of it come crashing down.

And all of this is with the assumption Chandragupta just doesn’t think poking the bear is worth it. Which is by no means sure.

seleucus was a more reasonable man than alexander and he view the Chandragupta as a treat Alexander would most likely do the same, also alexander wanted india , arabia , balkans , carthage etc , he would have to choose , if he tries arabia he might die as well since some sources wanted to take the west cost due to numerous reasons i mean a similar thing of the roman invasion of yemen can happen , in terms of africa i dont think it exist yet at least no the way it was the area that would become ghana was bearly being settled permantly ie the Djenné-Djenno in 250 bc

 

[isabella]

IMO to answer this question we really need to answer another question that’s central to Alexander’s character. Can he ever be satisfied?

Alexander isn’t dumb so it’s not like he’d leave the Indian border and the Iranian plateau unguarded when he went galavanting Westward so Chandragupta likely focuses on easier fish. So just for the sake of argument let’s assume he conquers Arabia, Carthage, and Italy to the in 5-10 years which seems reasonable baring any large setbacks in between. His empire is one of the richest in the world controlling essentially every major East West trade route.

What does he do now? Go to Babylon and focus on building an empire and uniting the Greek, Persian, Egyptian, and various other cultures? It doesn’t seem likely in my opinion. It doesn’t really fit his character. He’ll never be satisfied and in the mood to stop campaigning imo. Where he goes I don’t know. Maybe he chases the riches of the amber road, maybe he tries to vassalize and civilize the Balkan tribes, maybe he goes south after Subsaharan gold if that’s a thing at that point, maybe he sees Gaul and Hispania as places in need of conquering and colonizing, maybe he goes for round two in India. Regardless I think he ends up dead on some battlefield somewhere before he dies of natural causes. And when that happens the empire is just as likely to shatter as it did otl. Yeah his kids might take the biggest piece this time around as adults but it still shatters. To many ambitious generals, to many cultures, to stretched an empire, to many neighbors eying his frontier provinces.

I write this as someone who likes Alexander a lot as a figure. But the fact is he’s the great man holding the house of cards up. Without him at least some of it come crashing down.
And all of this is with the assumption Chandragupta just doesn’t think poking the bear is worth it. Which is by no means sure.

We can NOT know exactly what will satisfy Alexander. Arabian campaign and one against Carthage and everyone who was involved in the death of his namesake uncle/brother-in-law are a given, but after that everything can happen.
Plus Alexander living another five years and/or Hephaestion still alive at Alexander’s death would change everything as that would give “time for building over the foundation” of Alexander’s Empire aka time for seeing the birth of many children from the Weddings of Susa, who would be the ruling class of said Empire. Also just few years would be enough for Alexander to leave some heir of his own already born, specially a son from his young Queen (who was Stateira NOT Roxane) who would be likely able to keep here son‘s crown safe. If Alexander lived another 30 years the consequences would be enormous: his reign would be fully consolidated, his heir an adult man with children of his own, the new Greek/Persian elite at his second generations...

 

[Silver01]

We can NOT know exactly what will satisfy Alexander. Arabian campaign and one against Carthage and everyone who was involved in the death of his namesake uncle/brother-in-law are a given, but after that everything can happen.
Plus Alexander living another five years and/or Hephaestion still alive at Alexander’s death would change everything as that would give “time for building over the foundation” of Alexander’s Empire aka time for seeing the birth of many children from the Weddings of Susa, who would be the ruling class of said Empire. Also just few years would be enough for Alexander to leave some heir of his own already born, specially a son from his young Queen (who was Stateira NOT Roxane) who would be likely able to keep here son‘s crown safe. If Alexander lived another 30 years the consequences would be enormous: his reign would be fully consolidated, his heir an adult man with children of his own, the new Greek/Persian elite at his second generations...

Alexander living longer does not automatically mean his empire survives , its only does some good if Alexander actually tries to focus on administration and consolidation rather instead of i wanna be lord of all asia , the balkans carthage and more , who is to say a civil war does not happen after his death with the empire supporting different sons of alexander and their own interest or due to the factions of more greek oriented people vs more mixed persian peoples , i wont say its abs but even if the best conditions are made alexanders empire last a century or half a century after his death before it divides .

 

[Brahman]

I have a personal Idea that Alexander goes and uses the Manpower and Riches from Persia to conquer Mediterranean like the Romans, but at a much Higher pace, but it inevitably leads to his empire being too overextended, this results in Chandragupta essentially invading not just Afghanistan, but Iran as well, as most of Macedonian attention would be in the Mediterranean, And he annexes Afghanistan like OTL but leaves out Iran and allows a native Zoroastrian kingdom to rise again, essentially leading to Alexander's empire being a earlier, Macedonian version of Roman empire in Mediterranean

 

[Mikestone8]

Alexander living such old age is really implausible. Him had pretty unhealth lifestyle, much of enemies and he liked lead war trips personally

What sort of lifestyles did his generals have?

Apart from Seleucus (murdered at 79), Antigonus was killed in battle at 80, and Ptolemy died of old age at (iirc) 84. Soo an advanced age is not ASB.

The big problem, imho, is not his drinking but the arrow-wound to his lung that he suffered in India. Take that away and a long life is entirely possible, especially if he holds court in Ecbatana rather than the less healthy Babylon.

 

[isabella]

What sort of lifestyles did his generals have?

Apart from Seleucus (murdered at 79), Antigonus was killed in battle at 80, and Ptolemy died of old age at (iirc) 84. Soo an advanced age is not ASB.

The big problem, imho, is not his drinking but the arrow-wound to his lung that he suffered in India. Take that away and a long life is entirely possible, especially if he holds court in Ecbatana rather than the less healthy Babylon.

I think who also preventing the pretty idiot death of Hephaestus would make miracles in keeping Alexander’s excesses under control...

 

[Johnharry]

There would be no rebellions in the Eastern empire; there were none in OTL, not even after he'd just conquered the place and then marched on in the general direction of India. The rebellions were among the Greeks, and then only because there were false rumours of his death. The premature uprising had ended horribly, and when Alexander really died, you see that the Greeks did nothing until they were absolutely sure that he was really gone this time. And in Persia? No rebellions upon his death. Wide-spread mourning. The mother of the Emperor he had overthrown starved herself to death in mourning for Alexander. He was admired in Persia. Which is no surprise, since he was a liberator to most satraps: he lowered taxes and he took a hands-off approach. The only thing he didn't tolerate was corruption and fleecing of the populace. But other than that, the satraps had broad discretion under his reign.

Then there are the supposed invasions. I doubt those would materialise. The real contended would be Chandragupta, who was a cautious and canny ruler. He took the eastern satrapies in OTl because the Diadokhoi were fighting in the West, and Seleukos couldn't do anything about Chandragupta's blatant land-grab. In the ATL, Alexander can do something about it. Why would Chandragupta start a war like that? He simply took the easiest road to new gains in OTL. If he does the same in the ATL, that means not invading Alexander's empire, but instead focusing his attention on the parts of India he hasn't conquered yet. So he'd do what Ashoka did in OTL, but earlier.

Alexander, therefore, is quite secure, and will most certainly undertake a campaign in the West.

After his death: @Daylight Savings has the right of it. If Alexander lives to be 96 (or even 76, which would be more credible), his reign will be among the longest and most prosperous in recorded history. By then, the simple tax revenue of his many conquests (including his conquest of Arabia, which he was actively preparing, so that was definitely happening) would have long since earned back the costs of the campaigns to conquer them. Control of all meaningful East-West trade (both overland and oceanic) would have made Alexander's empire ludicrously wealthy. Literally everybody would be under the distinct impression that the God-Emperor Alexander had brought about the Golden Age. He'd have a 100% approval rating. Unless his heir is the most incompetent moron ever, the dynasty is as secure as any dynasty can ever be.

Its interesting that the Seleucids had no interest carrying out a fusion culture like what Alexander and also the ptolemiac dynasty tried

 

[Mikestone8]

I have a personal Idea that Alexander goes and uses the Manpower and Riches from Persia to conquer Mediterranean like the Romans, but at a much Higher pace, but it inevitably leads to his empire being too overextended,

Does acquiring Italy and Tunisia really overextend it all that much?

I accept that he'll probably go on to the Pillars of Hercules on general principles, maybe putting a giant statue of Heracles atop the Rock of Gibraltar. But, that done, is there anything else to keep him that far west?

 

[Mikestone8]

Alexander will not be able to respond while the mayran empire is conquering the north west of india ,as his men were tired of war and he had to consolidate first also him loosing or killing his army in the Gedrosia would helped , will be distracted by the Maurya if he is on the west its worse as he would have to leave to face Chandragupta Maurya the battles against the Malians and other Indian chiefdoms were some of the costliest of Alexanders campaign, Chandragupta Maurya will have an empire that is larger , has more wealth and man powered compared to it , Chandragupta Maurya did use guerilla warfare so even if alexander beats him in an open battle he can just drag the war on , Alexander being the egomanaic that he was would not stop unless another mutiny forced him to leave Alexander could waste potential years of if not more than a decade in india and an accomplish nothing .

But might this not cut both ways?

Couldn't "Chandragupta" find himself wasting precious years fighting *Alexander*, which he could use more profitably conquering in other directions?
Maybe they prefer to "stand back to back" rather than attacking each other.