What if Alexander the Great turns West?
- Thread starter nik2016
- Start date
Arabia, then Carthage and Sicily. He probably wouldn't have bothered with most of Europe, maybe conquering Italy.
Correct. But, given his charachter, I imagine his thoughts once in Carthage: "Let's reach the Ocean". He'll probably end up to circle the Western Med, or try to, putting the Hellenic and Punic cities along those coasts under his hegemony alongside the nearby local peoples in the process.
If he has time and strength, he might consider dealing with the only ancestal rival of the Greekdom now left - the Etruscans.
The succession crisis of 311 BCE in the Cimmerian Bosphorus, if not butterflied away, would the provide he perfect opportunity to take over the shores of the Euxine as well - reuniting basically all the Greek world under his sway, although actual control would be tenuous.
Another showdown in India is also likely - how well would it go is anybody's guess, but conquering the place is not in the cards.
In 299, Alexander passes away in Babylon, leaving behind a hell of Empire - "hell" also in the sense of being an exhausted, overextended mess that nobody can realistically hope to rule in one piece for long, barring excpetional luck.
I don't see the Empire making much inroads into Europe except along the Med coasts, anyway.
No imagining needed. He wanted to build a road from Alexandria to Tangiers.
Last edited:
Lol at the above use of Oliver Stone's Alexander.
I'm not sure how much personal oversight road construction requires - or how quickly Alexander would get bored of watching it happen. His paranoia and restlessness, imo, would keep him seeking out new foes, if he managed to conquer Carthage (which is not necessarily inevitable - it's a tough nut to crack).
I'm not sure how much personal oversight road construction requires - or how quickly Alexander would get bored of watching it happen. His paranoia and restlessness, imo, would keep him seeking out new foes, if he managed to conquer Carthage (which is not necessarily inevitable - it's a tough nut to crack).
Carthage would have been easy for someone with his resources at this point in its history. It got beat three times by a glorified city-state. March overland along the coast, subjugating the cities along the way, with s superior Phoenecian navy supplying him, and Carthage's two options are: 1) Surrender 2) Fight and, in the best possible case, cut themselves off from the majority of the med trade network.
I agree and the Romans no problem for Alexander. Rome until 280 BC controlled only Central Italy and its army wasn't so great, Pyrrhus of Epirus in OTL almost defeated them and had only 1/10 of Alexander resources
ben0628
Banned
I'm not so sure conquering Carthage is so easy.
1. What are the chances that the eastern part of Alexander's empire holds together while he moves West? I'm sure there are several groups of people waiting for the chance to revolt which would divert a lot of Alexander's resources.
2. Loyalty of the Phoenicians? Two things to this. First Carthage has ancestral history with the Phoenicians. I'm not sure they'd be completely willing to destroy each other. Second, both Carthage and the Phoenicians are trading cities that don't want to be control (cough Tyre cough) and THEY BOTH LIKE MONEY. What stops Carthage from bribing the Phoenician navy when Alexander's army is halfway through the desert?
3. Carthage's military strength. The army is a mixture of well trained mercenaries and berbers. Are Berber troops mainly horse archers or some other unit (I don't know)? How is Alexander at desert warfare? Also, AFRICAN ELEPHANTS! Finally, Carthage has a decent size navy and it's city is nigh impregnable (took the Romans a long time to take it in the third Punic war and the Romans are arguably the best at siege warfare).
Now I'm not saying Alexander would definitely lose or anything. What I'm saying is that although on paper he has the resources to win, A LOT could go wrong for him
1. What are the chances that the eastern part of Alexander's empire holds together while he moves West? I'm sure there are several groups of people waiting for the chance to revolt which would divert a lot of Alexander's resources.
2. Loyalty of the Phoenicians? Two things to this. First Carthage has ancestral history with the Phoenicians. I'm not sure they'd be completely willing to destroy each other. Second, both Carthage and the Phoenicians are trading cities that don't want to be control (cough Tyre cough) and THEY BOTH LIKE MONEY. What stops Carthage from bribing the Phoenician navy when Alexander's army is halfway through the desert?
3. Carthage's military strength. The army is a mixture of well trained mercenaries and berbers. Are Berber troops mainly horse archers or some other unit (I don't know)? How is Alexander at desert warfare? Also, AFRICAN ELEPHANTS! Finally, Carthage has a decent size navy and it's city is nigh impregnable (took the Romans a long time to take it in the third Punic war and the Romans are arguably the best at siege warfare).
Now I'm not saying Alexander would definitely lose or anything. What I'm saying is that although on paper he has the resources to win, A LOT could go wrong for him
Tyre submitted to Alex almost immediately. They had been livimg under foreign domination for centuries by this point, since the Assyrians first started throwing around their weight. They had no philosophical problem with surrendering to snohter conqueror. The histories say Alex demanded to be able to make sacrifices in the city, which the Persians never demanded, and they fought him for that.
Carthsge might fight him for similar reasons, if he's just as intransigent, but they might also follow Tyre's example and just give in, when they cintemplate that Tyre had better defenses and still lost. And that the other phoenician navies didn't desert Alex when he attacked Tyre.
Carthsge might fight him for similar reasons, if he's just as intransigent, but they might also follow Tyre's example and just give in, when they cintemplate that Tyre had better defenses and still lost. And that the other phoenician navies didn't desert Alex when he attacked Tyre.
1. As long as Alex is alive, they'll have to contemplate that rebellion is a rather dangerous game. Better to bide their time and hope for chaos on his death. Plus there will be a rearguard of regents and Makedonian satraps to hold everything down.
2. Unlikely. I don't think that sort of kinship really existed, and besides, Alexander will have plenty of Greek allies from Magna Grecia and Sicily if he means to invade Carthage. If the Phoenicians ever meant to rebel, they'd also have to realize that they were damning their homelands more or less to annihilation by doing so.
3. The Liby-Phoenician troops fought in a variety of styles - both as cavalry and hoplite-style infantry. The Numidians and inland tribal groups tended to provide lighter equipped infantry and cavalry who were adept at skirmishing. As you say, there will also be small African Elephants. However, none of these threats are particularly new for Alexander, none of them are extraordinary. Alexander himself would likely bring a very well-rounded, flexible army, and his own remarkably military prowess.
Carthage wouldn't surrender outright - that would be pretty crazy. I expect there would be at least a few battles, and probably a siege. But it would probably lose.
Edit: SlyDessertFox has an excellent write up of a hypothetical campaign against the Carthaginians in his latest timeline. I encourage you to check it out.
2. Unlikely. I don't think that sort of kinship really existed, and besides, Alexander will have plenty of Greek allies from Magna Grecia and Sicily if he means to invade Carthage. If the Phoenicians ever meant to rebel, they'd also have to realize that they were damning their homelands more or less to annihilation by doing so.
3. The Liby-Phoenician troops fought in a variety of styles - both as cavalry and hoplite-style infantry. The Numidians and inland tribal groups tended to provide lighter equipped infantry and cavalry who were adept at skirmishing. As you say, there will also be small African Elephants. However, none of these threats are particularly new for Alexander, none of them are extraordinary. Alexander himself would likely bring a very well-rounded, flexible army, and his own remarkably military prowess.
Carthage wouldn't surrender outright - that would be pretty crazy. I expect there would be at least a few battles, and probably a siege. But it would probably lose.
Edit: SlyDessertFox has an excellent write up of a hypothetical campaign against the Carthaginians in his latest timeline. I encourage you to check it out.
I think who Alexander's empire collapsed after his death mostly for bad luck and I am not kidding. Alexander died without an heir or a recognized regent. Really first Hephaistion, Alexander's right hand and brother-in-law, died (and if Hephaistion was alive after Alexander's death he will be the regent), the Alexander himself died while his other candidate as regent was away from the capital and about to depart for Greece (so in a place where he was without the power to do anything: if Krateros was still in Babylon Alexander will be able to clearly named him as regent, if he was already back in their homeland and had replaced Antipater as regent of Macedonia he will be able to make his claim) and then his young Queen (likely pregnant with his heir) was killed on the order of his other ambitious pregnant wife. Add to all of this the fact who he died too soon after the weddings who in his mind would have born the next generation of the ruling class of his Empire and so this other plan crashed in almost nothing and his only legitimate son was nothing more than a puppet for all his short life (because of his mother's action) and the dissolution of the empire is the only logical conclusion but this fall does not tell us anything about the stability of Alexander's empire when he was alive
Last edited:
Alexander turning west after India has always struck me as the wrong PoD. For me Alexander turning west after Bessus and the Jaxartes is the point which is most interesting. He could be in the West in 327 (revolts in Bactria not withstanding). At this point Rome is just about to enter the disastrous first phase of the Second Samnite war (culminating in the Battle of the Caudine Forks) and Carthage is in a stand-off with Syracuse over Sicily.
Coming west would also reduce the pace of Alexander's adoption of Persian mannerisms.
Given the fragmented state of Italy at the time the difficulty would be in deciding what the aims were to be - most likely it would be to incorporate Syracuse into the League of Corinth along with the other colonies (Sparta may be dealt with "in passing" as well). Most likely this will result in a conflict with Carthage. Alternatively the Romans could appeal for assistance against the Samnites - which might result in Rome being a client state of Alexander!
Coming west would also reduce the pace of Alexander's adoption of Persian mannerisms.
Given the fragmented state of Italy at the time the difficulty would be in deciding what the aims were to be - most likely it would be to incorporate Syracuse into the League of Corinth along with the other colonies (Sparta may be dealt with "in passing" as well). Most likely this will result in a conflict with Carthage. Alternatively the Romans could appeal for assistance against the Samnites - which might result in Rome being a client state of Alexander!
My last classical Roman TL had something similar, with Roman histories insisting they were allies and Greek histories saying they were vassals.
I don't think Alexander is going to Britain, even if we give him a 30 year extension on his lifespan and he keeps his youth (hey, I know someone whose great-grandmother looks like her high school aged younger sister without plastic surgery, so you know maybe the genetics roll right for Alexander's longevity). Taking the entire Mediterranean is more plausible.
When I read this at first, I misread it and thought Alexander went west from Macedon. And I'm like "dude, Persia is a great power and the biggest honcho, he's going to pass up the opportunity to show he can beat the best empire???"
When I read this at first, I misread it and thought Alexander went west from Macedon. And I'm like "dude, Persia is a great power and the biggest honcho, he's going to pass up the opportunity to show he can beat the best empire???"
Total insanity. He'd conquer coastal Arabia, Carthage, and maybe a few Italiote Greek city-states before moving to the Indian frontier, because of either expansionist ambitions or facing an invasion from Chandragupta Maurya.
So there's a few things here. First, the Phoenicians could more or less be reliably counted upon to fight the Carthaginians-there's no reason to expect that they would disobey Alexander, given his reputation-they need to look no further than what happened to Tyre, a city who's transgression was agreeing to everything short of allowing his army enter the city, to know that defying Alexander was not a realistic option. Second, for the same reasons, there shouldn't be any significant rebellions in Alexander's realm while he's still alive. It's after his death where the fun starts.
Third, the campaign itself. The most likely route to Carthage is through Magna Graecia, allowing for him to also subjugate the Greek city states there under his fold. Doing so at least nominally won't be that hard, as the minor city states don't really have the will or the means to resist, and those like Tarentum and Syracuse will wager its better to let him be on his way and bide their time for dealing with Macedonian control at a later date, preferably when his body is cold. Syracuse in particular might be very interested in an alliance with Alexander-they could make out handsomely seeing their one rival on the peninsula destroyed.
Anyway, I don't see why the initial campaign in Sicily wouldn't be any less successful than Pyrrhus's was up until he reached the walls of Lillybaeum. This is where the first major test would come. Taking Lillybaeum almost assuredly requires cutting it off from the sea, which means taking on the Carthaginian navy. While this is a fight Alexander should win, Carthage can be expected to put up a strong fight. Assuming victory here, Alexander's next immediate objective would be Carthage itself, setting the stage for another one of his epic sieges. Once Carthage is taken, this does not necessarily mean Alexander inherits Carthage's connections and hegemony over the other Phoenician cities dotting the western Mediterranean-this will itself require a some investment of time, using a mix of diplomacy and force. It would be interesting to see how Alexander would handle a more tactful and patient approach to dealing with foes/wary neutrals than straight military intervention.
Third, the campaign itself. The most likely route to Carthage is through Magna Graecia, allowing for him to also subjugate the Greek city states there under his fold. Doing so at least nominally won't be that hard, as the minor city states don't really have the will or the means to resist, and those like Tarentum and Syracuse will wager its better to let him be on his way and bide their time for dealing with Macedonian control at a later date, preferably when his body is cold. Syracuse in particular might be very interested in an alliance with Alexander-they could make out handsomely seeing their one rival on the peninsula destroyed.
Anyway, I don't see why the initial campaign in Sicily wouldn't be any less successful than Pyrrhus's was up until he reached the walls of Lillybaeum. This is where the first major test would come. Taking Lillybaeum almost assuredly requires cutting it off from the sea, which means taking on the Carthaginian navy. While this is a fight Alexander should win, Carthage can be expected to put up a strong fight. Assuming victory here, Alexander's next immediate objective would be Carthage itself, setting the stage for another one of his epic sieges. Once Carthage is taken, this does not necessarily mean Alexander inherits Carthage's connections and hegemony over the other Phoenician cities dotting the western Mediterranean-this will itself require a some investment of time, using a mix of diplomacy and force. It would be interesting to see how Alexander would handle a more tactful and patient approach to dealing with foes/wary neutrals than straight military intervention.
The issue with all the Alexander turns West scenarios is how many rebels will appear in the East and what Alexander will do with them..
If Alexander doesn't punish the Scythians then they can be expected to cause an irritation. Ditto the Indians but there really isn't a lot for them to gain by expanding into what was the Persian Empire apart from a lot of desert. If Alexander can leave a trustworthy and competent deputy in Babylon they should be able to manage the Wild East. However, Alexander took ANY threat to his Persian Empire inherited from Darius as a personal affront and is likely to overreact to news of unrest, hamstringing any Western campaign.
If Alexander could accept a more Macedonian-centric world view (unlikely) then sending Antipater to Babylon as he did in OTL in 324 BCE would seem a logical move. If this happens then SlyDesertFox's analysis is pretty much bang-on in my opinion.
The only real question remaining in the West is then which side (between Rome and the Samnites) will Alexander support (and hence which side becomes his vassal-ally)
If Alexander doesn't punish the Scythians then they can be expected to cause an irritation. Ditto the Indians but there really isn't a lot for them to gain by expanding into what was the Persian Empire apart from a lot of desert. If Alexander can leave a trustworthy and competent deputy in Babylon they should be able to manage the Wild East. However, Alexander took ANY threat to his Persian Empire inherited from Darius as a personal affront and is likely to overreact to news of unrest, hamstringing any Western campaign.
If Alexander could accept a more Macedonian-centric world view (unlikely) then sending Antipater to Babylon as he did in OTL in 324 BCE would seem a logical move. If this happens then SlyDesertFox's analysis is pretty much bang-on in my opinion.
The only real question remaining in the West is then which side (between Rome and the Samnites) will Alexander support (and hence which side becomes his vassal-ally)