If Alexander conquered Carthage...

Pellaeon

Banned
Prior to his unfortunate and untimely death Alexander the Great had many unfinished plans of conquest.

He planned on conquering Arabia, and then Carthage. And presumably Sicily and southern Italy as well.

If say by 310 BC he had achieved all these things what would his next course of action be?

Would he rest to consolidate his empire or have another go at India?

He had other non-military plans including the creation of a Greco-Persian ruling class, circumnavigating Africa and more building projects.

Would given an additional forty to fifty years of life he achieved these things?

If he made another attempt at India say around 305-300 BC how far could he have gotten?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
As Livy pointed out in the First Century BC (in the earliest recorded alternate history musing), talk of how much more Alexander could have conquered had he not died ignores the fact that he would simply not have been able to maintain his youthful energy and endurance as he inevitably aged. Even in India, he was losing the vibrancy that had characterized the early years. Moreover, if he had invaded India a decade or so later, he would have had Chandragupta Maurya to deal with (barring butterflies), who was every bit Alexander's equal in the military sphere.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Alexander died when he was 32 years old. He was hardly an old man. His father fought battles when he was older. Many Greeks did. Several Macedonian generals were of quite advanced age and still fought like lions. So I don't think he'll suddenly be unable to conquer if he lives longer. The main reason Alexander was severely "slowed down" was a grievous injury from an arrow to the throat/shoulder, which he got from the Mallians. And that weakness is good. Far from being less vigorous, Alexander got that wound because he recklessly charged ahead before his companions could catch up. He was constantly putting himself in mortal danger like that. The injury and the resulting weakness prevents that a bit. The greatest danger to a long-lived Alexander will in any TL be Alexander himself. His dangerous lifestyle. In every campaign, he can just randomly get killed. Statistically, he's unlikely to live to old age if he keeps fighting.

Supposing he does keep campaigning and doesn't randomly get killed, he can take Arabia and Carthage as planned. He can annex Megale Hellas and the westernmost Greek cities (like Massalia), too. He can ensure Rome will never threaten him. In all likelihood, he'll pacify the remaining bits of Anatolia he didn't get to the first time around, and he'll probably carry out a campagn against the Illyrians (who were being troublesome when he died in OTL). That's it for western conquests, I'd say. All this can be done.

As far as building projects are concerned: he wanted a better road network, and he wanted to restore the Canal of the Pharaos. Both great plans.

Regarding the Greco-Persian aristocracy: those marriages may mostly have failed in OTL when Alexander died within a year of the mass ceremony, but they won't be dissolved while he lives. If he lives long enough, a mixed aristocracy will be born, and that's great news for imperial cohesion.

The stupidest thing he can do is try for India again. That won't end well. The best thing he can do -- having acieved the above things -- is calm down a bit, raise his son and heir, and ensure his empire stays together. Unfortunately, that's not the thing he's likeliest to do. As I said: the greatest threat to Alexander is Alexander.
 

Pellaeon

Banned
Alexander died when he was 32 years old. He was hardly an old man. His father fought battles when he was older. Many Greeks did. Several Macedonian generals were of quite advanced age and still fought like lions. So I don't think he'll suddenly be unable to conquer if he lives longer. The main reason Alexander was severely "slowed down" was a grievous injury from an arrow to the throat/shoulder, which he got from the Mallians. And that weakness is good. Far from being less vigorous, Alexander got that wound because he recklessly charged ahead before his companions could catch up. He was constantly putting himself in mortal danger like that. The injury and the resulting weakness prevents that a bit. The greatest danger to a long-lived Alexander will in any TL be Alexander himself. His dangerous lifestyle. In every campaign, he can just randomly get killed. Statistically, he's unlikely to live to old age if he keeps fighting.

Supposing he does keep campaigning and doesn't randomly get killed, he can take Arabia and Carthage as planned. He can annex Megale Hellas and the westernmost Greek cities (like Massalia), too. He can ensure Rome will never threaten him. In all likelihood, he'll pacify the remaining bits of Anatolia he didn't get to the first time around, and he'll probably carry out a campagn against the Illyrians (who were being troublesome when he died in OTL). That's it for western conquests, I'd say. All this can be done.

As far as building projects are concerned: he wanted a better road network, and he wanted to restore the Canal of the Pharaos. Both great plans.

Regarding the Greco-Persian aristocracy: those marriages may mostly have failed in OTL when Alexander died within a year of the mass ceremony, but they won't be dissolved while he lives. If he lives long enough, a mixed aristocracy will be born, and that's great news for imperial cohesion.

The stupidest thing he can do is try for India again. That won't end well. The best thing he can do -- having acieved the above things -- is calm down a bit, raise his son and heir, and ensure his empire stays together. Unfortunately, that's not the thing he's likeliest to do. As I said: the greatest threat to Alexander is Alexander.
Wasn't Rome still fighting the Samnites at this time?

If Alexander hold's the Megale Hellas and western Greek colonies will Italy ever be united?

Yeah I and I did notice that there were two parts of Anatolia he swerved around.

With regards to Illyria how far north could he go? As far as modern Poland? Hungary(or the areas that would form them)?

Might he go to Crimea and the Black Sea?

Nubia?

It just seems that the whole world was open to him.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Wasn't Rome still fighting the Samnites at this time?

Yes. And Alexander's pretext for going to Italy would be to avenge his uncle... who was killed by the Samnites.


If Alexander hold's the Megale Hellas and western Greek colonies will Italy ever be united?

I see him tying Rome into an alliance which gives Rome most of the Samnite land, but ensures that Rome has to leave Megale Hellas alone.


With regards to Illyria how far north could he go? As far as modern Poland? Hungary(or the areas that would form them)?

Might he go to Crimea and the Black Sea?

Nubia?

He certainly won't go past the southern Carpathians. I see him putting the northern border at the Danube-Sava line, and that's if he bothers to go that far.

Crimea is more likely, since there are Greek settlements there and he might like the idea of being the ruler of all the Hellenes.

Nubia depends. Overland is tricky, but if he's got Arabia already, he can control the North-East African coast via naval power in the Red Sea.
 
One idea I think was mention one time was a much more Hellenistic Rome becoming a major power after the death of Alexander's death, and when his Empire start to crack, and then break up.
 

Pellaeon

Banned
One idea I think was mention one time was a much more Hellenistic Rome becoming a major power after the death of Alexander's death, and when his Empire start to crack, and then break up.
If Alexander lives to be 80 wouldn't he have a full grown heir at this point?
 
If Alexander lives to be 80 wouldn't he have a full grown heir at this point?

He'd probably have grown-up grandsons by then. Of course Macedonians were a violent lot, so his Empire might still fragment under various warring brothers or cousins, rather as Charlemagne's did later.

However, for him to make such old bones, you probably need a pre-323 PoD, averting his arrow wound (lung puncture) in India.
 
Last edited:
If Alexander lives to be 80 wouldn't he have a full grown heir at this point?

He'd probably have grown-up grandsons by then. Of course Macedonians were a violent lot, so his Empire might still fragment under various warring brothers or cousins, rather as ?Charlemagne's did later.

However, for him to make such old bones, you probably need a pre-323 PoD, averting his arrow wound (lung puncture) in India.

That's the idea. We would see a much larger Hellenistic mix of a world if Alexander does lives to be 80, I can see the Empire being divide between his sons, grandsons, and generals after his death, but can suffer a era of fragment as they start to fight each other.
 
Honestly, if Alexander had lived longer, I expect we'd have had an earlier Nader Shah.

Alexander seems to have been a hard drinker, and while it's possible he might have avoided the illness he contracted in India OTL (probably malaria, just like Nader), riding between battles is a hard life and the odds are he'll get seriously ill eventually even if he dodges the malaria bullet. Or he'd end up with a painful wound...

And while Alexander was a great conqueror, he showed no signs of having the skills needed to actually run the Achaemenid empire. At best, we likely see Alexander divide his empire between his generals to run the mundane details and crush the smaller rebellions in different regions of the empire while Alexander focuses on India and major rebellions but worse trouble is headed off by his personal charisma. At worst, we see Alexander turning into a vile tyrant, too debilitated by alcoholism to rule or fight battles effectively, but too strong for any effective leader to overthrow him before he wrecked too much of the fabric of the state.

Dying at 32 was probably the best thing Alexander could have done.

fasquardon
 
It just seems that the whole world was open to him.
Well if you don't keep him busy he's liable to start indulging in the whole god-emperor thing.

With a generation or two growing up under him and successors who likely claim direct line descent from big A he might actually make it stick in Hellenistic conscious.
 
Last edited:

Pellaeon

Banned
Well if you don't keep him busy he's liable to start indulging in the whole god-emperor aspect.

With a generation or two growing up under him and successors who likely claim direct line descendent from big A he might actually make it stick in Hellenistic conscious.
I just think it's glorious imagining Macedonian armies marching across the plains of Central Asia, the deserts of Africa and the jungles and rivers of India, to have the tread of the companion cavalry across Europe, and the awesome juggernaught of the Phalanxes marching against China.

Forging a great empire that could have changed the very foundations of history.
 
Alexander died when he was 32 years old. He was hardly an old man. His father fought battles when he was older. Many Greeks did. Several Macedonian generals were of quite advanced age and still fought like lions. So I don't think he'll suddenly be unable to conquer if he lives longer. The main reason Alexander was severely "slowed down" was a grievous injury from an arrow to the throat/shoulder, which he got from the Mallians. And that weakness is good. Far from being less vigorous, Alexander got that wound because he recklessly charged ahead before his companions could catch up. He was constantly putting himself in mortal danger like that. The injury and the resulting weakness prevents that a bit. The greatest danger to a long-lived Alexander will in any TL be Alexander himself. His dangerous lifestyle. In every campaign, he can just randomly get killed. Statistically, he's unlikely to live to old age if he keeps fighting.
If he learns to delegate it would do wonders for his health. Though Seleucus was fighting wars and active well into his late seventies and still had to be assasinated or who knows how long Nicator could have stayed around before a natural death.

Alexander posessed one of the great benches of talent in history, with multiple officers talented enough to have their own armies (which they did) and as good or better than he was. And admittedly some so-so generals who just copied his tactics like holy writ. He'll live a lot longer if he learned to rule and delegate instead of needing to personally command every campaign himself. It would also increase the rate of conquest.

Though historically the talent pool does start thinning out quickly after the first generation.
 
Top