WI: Alexander fails to conquer Tyre

What if Alexander, the Great, had failed to conquer the city-state of Tyre in 332 BCE? Could Tyre become an "eastern Carthage" of sorts, if it manages to push back further invasion attempts by the diadochi?
 
That would be interesting, but I think it depends on the scenario. Like if Alexander just drops the siege and moves on to other conquests like Pyrrhus does to Lilybaeum IOTL, leaving Tyre as a little enclave surrounded by Macedonian territory, I can't imagine it becoming too terribly strong. Even with the chaos of the diadochi, Tyre would have to be an adroit player in the various ebbs and flows in the wars of the successors to have a shot at establishing itself as a full-on independent power (client-state of Seleucid or Ptolemaic dynasties would be more likely).
 
The best Tyre can do is become a poor man's Rhodes. Autonomous, wealthy trade entrepot that has to pay tribute to the preeminent power in the region.
 
Didn't they almost kill him with a night raid that only failed because he switched tents? Now that would have serious implications.
 
Didn't they almost kill him with a night raid that only failed because he switched tents? Now that would have serious implications.
I don't recall this. Any source? I may be forgetting. Could you be confusing Alexander with Augustus? Something similar happened to him at Philippi.
 
I don't recall this. Any source? I may be forgetting. Could you be confusing Alexander with Augustus? Something similar happened to him at Philippi.

I found this linked from Wikipedia. Sections 21 and 22 in there. It was apparently afternoon, not night, but if it's true, then the idea would be the same, that they could have caught him with his pants down and bumped him off.
 
I found this linked from Wikipedia. Sections 21 and 22 in there. It was apparently afternoon, not night, but if it's true, then the idea would be the same, that they could have caught him with his pants down and bumped him off.
I may be misreading, but it seems to me that Arian isn't saying that they went on a raid for him, but that they geared up for an attack on his fleet and timed it for when he was expected to not be with the fleet, and thus unable to direct an immediate response. Alexander had, in fact, returned to his fleet and thus when the Tyrians attacked he was able to lead an effective counter.

he Tyrians were now in great difficulties in every way, and they decided to make an attack on the Cyprian ships which were blockading the harbour which faced towards Sidon. For a long time they covered the mouth of the harbour with sails, so that no one could see them manning their triremes; about the middle of the day, when the sailors had scattered to do what they needed to, and Alexander had just left the fleet on the other side of the city for his tent, they manned six smaller ships and seven triremes with their best trained crews and with men suitably equipped to fight from the decks, all men who were boldest in naval battles. At first they began to move out quietly in single file, without anyone calling the stroke; but when they were turning towards the Cyprians and were almost in sight of them, they then began to attack with much shouting and encouragement to each other, rowing with an even stroke.


22
On this particular day, it happened that Alexander went to his tent but did not spend time there as he usually did, but soon returned to the ships.
The Tyrians attacked the ships at anchor unexpectedly, and found some completely empty, while others were being manned with difficulty by those who chanced to be there in the midst of the shouting and the attack. In the first attack, they sank the ship of King Pnytagoras, together with those captained by Androcles from Amathus and Pasicrates of Curium, and they drove the others to the shore and smashed them.
 
I may be misreading, but it seems to me that Aryan isn't saying that they went on a raid for him, but that they geared up for an attack on his fleet and timed it for when he was expected to not be with the fleet, and thus unable to direct an immediate response. Alexander had, in fact, returned to his fleet and thus when the Tyrians attacked he was able to lead an effective counter.

Hm, maybe I had just misinterpreted this when I first heard it, because I think I learned about this attack on TV at some point.
 
Hm, maybe I had just misinterpreted this when I first heard it, because I think I learned about this attack on TV at some point.
Possibly.


Anyway, the easiest way to make Tyre maintain its autonomy is to not have the Siege of Tyre happen in the first place. The Tyrians handled the situation remarkably stupidly, even considering that they rightly didn't believe anyone could take their city by force. They initially refused Alexander's request to sacrifice at the Temple of Melqart in the city, and then during negotiations killed his ambassadors. I'm not sure how easy it is to convince them to let Alexander enter the city and move on, but had they done that, given their strategic location, they are set to basically be a discount Rhodes in the Hellenistic era.
 
Possibly.


Anyway, the easiest way to make Tyre maintain its autonomy is to not have the Siege of Tyre happen in the first place. The Tyrians handled the situation remarkably stupidly, even considering that they rightly didn't believe anyone could take their city by force. They initially refused Alexander's request to sacrifice at the Temple of Melqart in the city, and then during negotiations killed his ambassadors. I'm not sure how easy it is to convince them to let Alexander enter the city and move on, but had they done that, given their strategic location, they are set to basically be a discount Rhodes in the Hellenistic era.
The issue here is that the tyrians were afraid of Alexander's sacrifice request being a possible Trojan Horse.
 
What if Alexander, the Great, had failed to conquer the city-state of Tyre in 332 BCE? Could Tyre become an "eastern Carthage" of sorts, if it manages to push back further invasion attempts by the diadochi?

Alexander failing to conquer the city-state of Tyre is highly unlikely, out of his character.
And it goes against the grain his strategy of conquering the Persian Empire.

Tyre was world-famous impregnable city, so taking it was crucially important for Alexander - to show all other cities and fortresses, that if the fortification defies Alexander - it will be taken no matter what; and if Tyre was taken - no other city will have a chance.

Taking Tyre was a message to all the cities of the Persian empire, so I'd rather see Alexander dying while storming Tyre, than Alexander leaving Tyre unconquered.

But OK, let's say some 'unimaginable' circumstances happened... Alexander's health failed him, he felt that he was about to die, Alexander had a nervous breakdown, whatever... and he left the siege of Tyre, signed some peace treaty with Tyre where the city formally accepted Alexander's power and agreed to pay some insignificant tribute; but Tyre stays virtually independent.
- What are the consequences?
- I don't know... Alexander might be slower in building his Empire (if ever), I guess, because other cities might follow the lead of Tyre, hoping to withstand the siege and bargain their independence.
I mean, Tyre is not just one city, it's an example, it's Alexander loosing his godlike aura of invincibility in the beginning.

- And what about Tyre afterwards, after Alexander is dead?
- As it's a very serious POD, history might dramatically change - we might see Alexander's Empire stopping somewhere in Mesopotamia... anything...
But if we assume that Alexander conquers approximately the same territory and after his death the Empire splits more or less the same, then Tyre might have good chances to keep it's virtual independence, I guess. And having in mind the brilliant success of Carthage, these Punic guys from Tyre might build a nice trading Empire of their own; Tyre becomes a natural refuge, safe heaven for all the Phoenicians from other cities which suffer from the supposed Alexander's successors' wars - that is an immense pool for a trading empire.

- Will Carthage and independent Tyre become allies?
Not necessarily, I think. But that's possible. Two powerful impregnable Punic cities in the Mediterranean... that's something, which might change the course of events of the World history.
 

trajen777

Banned
The issues were
1. Tyre left alone could support a fleet (that is why he followed the coast down to Egypt -- he did not have the fleet that Persia did so you defeat the fleet by taking the ports.
2. Tyre offered an alliance - just did not want an occupation
3. The key to taking Tyre was the spit he built to connect the land to the island. If you have coastal tide be unusually strong that year - that washed out the Spit then Tyre would not have been taken. This i feel is the only way to not have him take it -- some natural situation
 
Top