WI: Alexander the Great decides to conquer Italy instead of India

I haven’t seen one of these threads on here, so pardon me if it’s been done before. However, as the title says, what if Alexander decides to stop at Persia, and decided to invade the Italian peninsula and annex it to his empire? Is this attempt ASB? Would he be able to keep this empire together more easily? Would this butterfly the Roman Empire entirely?
 

Maoistic

Banned
He should win in all honesty. None of Magna Grecia, Rome or Carthage's military feats at this point rival those of Alexander, who could pull a massive siege where he almost died with his troops suffering from the desert climate and succeed in taking the city. It should take him about as much time in conquering the Persian Empire at the very least. In fact, Alexander conquered Thrace or at least a good portion of it in preparation for his invasion of Persia. He can easily use that territory as his base for an Italian invasion.
 
Last edited:
He should win in all honesty. None Magna Grecia, Rome or Carthage's military feats at this point rival those of Alexander, who could pull a massive siege where he almost died with his troops suffering from the desert climate and succeed in taking the city. It should take him about as much time in conquering the Persian Empire at the very least. In fact, Alexander conquered Thrace or at least a good portion of it in preparation for his invasion of Persia. He can easily use that territory as his base for an Italian invasion.

Do you think such a decision would have been better than the decision to invade India?
 
This is actually the oldest alternate history question ever posed. Livy, in Chapters 17-19 of Book IX of his History of Rome, contemplated an alternative scenario in which Alexander the Great had expanded his empire westward instead of eastward. He concluded that the Romans would have defeated Alexander, although Livy being Roman himself is prone to bias in that regard.
 
This is actually the oldest alternate history question ever posed. Livy, in Chapters 17-19 of Book IX of his History of Rome, contemplated an alternative scenario in which Alexander the Great had expanded his empire westward instead of eastward. He concluded that the Romans would have defeated Alexander, although Livy being Roman himself is prone to bias in that regard.

Do you agree with his conclusion?
 

Maoistic

Banned
Do you think such a decision would have been better than the decision to invade India?
I think so. Italy is much closer than India and it would lead to far more stability for his empire which broke almost immediately after his death and would have lasted longer. I can envision a similar scenario to that of China of a core Hellenic world forming, breaking and reforming again, without the Christianisation, Germanisation and Slavisation of Europe that occurred during the Middle Ages, instead the whole of Europe being Hellenised with Greek as the general lingua franca and Greek religion(s) spreading and lasting far more in the continent.

This is actually the oldest alternate history question ever posed. Livy, in Chapters 17-19 of Book IX of his History of Rome, contemplated an alternative scenario in which Alexander the Great had expanded his empire westward instead of eastward. He concluded that the Romans would have defeated Alexander, although Livy being Roman himself is prone to bias in that regard.

Yeah, Livy is full of hogwash. None of Rome's feats rival Alexander's army surviving a desert climate a continent away, defeating an elephant army and then besieging and sacking well fortified cities along the way back. That's not even getting into sieges like that of Tyre and Gaza where Alexander performed engineering master feats that Rome at the time could only dream of.
 
Alexander simply sacks Rome, and if they revolt he burns it to the ground and gives the land to the Etruscans or something like that. Rome in 300 BC would be a minor speed bump for Alexander.
 
I mean, Alexander had been pushing his army eastward for some time by the time he reached India. If he were to turn around and head towards Italy, honestly he might not even make it to the Bosporus due to his OTL bad health. It would be pretty out of his way, too. He was planning to center his state around the fertile crescent (specifically Babylon) in order to more efficiently administrate it. But in all honesty, if he does manage to make it to Italy and his troops don't revolt/mutiny and tell him to go home halfway through, I could see him taking the peninsula.
 
I think we should note that, IIRC, Livy's proposal that the Romans could have defeated Alexander came right after his account of the local hill-tribes of central Italy absolutely spanking the Romans at Caudine Forks, so its purpose in his works is uhhhh suspect.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
I can see an Alexandrian conquest of Italy happening after Alexander's planned campaigns in Arabia and Carthage.

It would start with Magna Grecia and Sicily falling under Alexandrian rule and then Alexander campaigning up to maybe the Po River or even the Alps.
 
It’s incredibly peripheral at this point in time. Who cares about poor, Greek-influenced hill tribes when the riches of India await? If Alexander could have “taken India” (an ASB proposition, of course), there’s a good chance he would have tried to go for China after that.
 
If Alexander could have “taken India” (an ASB proposition, of course), there’s a good chance he would have tried to go for China after that.
How is it ASB? He already ruled much of Asia, and was busy raising fresh armies from bases much closer to India than where the core of his original army was raised. He had thirty thousand Asians trained in Macedonian style -three times as many actual Macedonians in his original army- as well as twenty thousand Persians fighting in their native style, plus subject Indian tribes and kingdoms of the Indus valley. While campaigning into the rugged upland Deccan plateau is probably not the best move, between Persian and Indian resources closely available, if anyone could pull off a conquest of the Ganges river valley, it'd be Alexander.
 
How is it ASB? He already ruled much of Asia, and was busy raising fresh armies from bases much closer to India than where the core of his original army was raised. He had thirty thousand Asians trained in Macedonian style -three times as many actual Macedonians in his original army- as well as twenty thousand Persians fighting in their native style, plus subject Indian tribes and kingdoms of the Indus valley. While campaigning into the rugged upland Deccan plateau is probably not the best move, between Persian and Indian resources closely available, if anyone could pull off a conquest of the Ganges river valley, it'd be Alexander.

I meant OTL modern-day India, not the Ganges river valley—that’s plausible, but how do you counteract native Macedonian soldiers’ fatigue?

And even if he did conquer it all, Chandragupta Maurya is only a few years away...
 
I meant OTL modern-day India, not the Ganges river valley—that’s plausible, but how do you counteract native Macedonian soldiers’ fatigue?

And even if he did conquer it all, Chandragupta Maurya is only a few years away...
Send 'em home, carry on with the Asians. More heavy pikemen than he started out with, excellent light and heavy cavalry from Central Asia and Iran, his own corps of war elephants from India. The Macedonians, save those leading the companies of Asians, can have a well-deserved rest at that point.

Also, and Alexander campaign down the Ganges would probably butterfly the Mauryans out of existence, since Alexander would control the heartland of that state before it was born once he consolidated control over the Indus and Ganges.
 

Maoistic

Banned
How is it ASB? He already ruled much of Asia, and was busy raising fresh armies from bases much closer to India than where the core of his original army was raised. He had thirty thousand Asians trained in Macedonian style -three times as many actual Macedonians in his original army- as well as twenty thousand Persians fighting in their native style, plus subject Indian tribes and kingdoms of the Indus valley. While campaigning into the rugged upland Deccan plateau is probably not the best move, between Persian and Indian resources closely available, if anyone could pull off a conquest of the Ganges river valley, it'd be Alexander.

He was overextended, he admitted that Porus was a strong opponent and his army mutinied or nearly mutinied because they were about to face the Nanda Empire if they advanced further beyond the Hydaspes which is why he turned back. Sure, Alexander conquered fortified cities, but had he faced the Nanda Empire, he most likely would have died.

Also, and Alexander campaign down the Ganges would probably butterfly the Mauryans out of existence, since Alexander would control the heartland of that state before it was born once he consolidated control over the Indus and Ganges.

Which he isn't doing because not only is his army exhausted, he would be facing an empire far stronger than the outskirts cities he captured, for as impressive as those conquests were, he almost died doing so (receiving the famous arrow that almost killed him in modern day Multan) and these confrontations were the reason why his army nearly mutinied and forced him to go back. They weren't easy by any means and he was about to confront an even more powerful centralised state that was quite comparable to the Achaemenids at least militarily and in terms of infrastructure. So yes, it really is implausible even if Alexander decides to use Asians and send back his Greek army.
 
He was overextended, he admitted that Porus was a strong opponent and his army mutinied or nearly mutinied because they were about to face the Nanda Empire if they advanced further beyond the Hydaspes which is why he turned back. Sure, Alexander conquered fortified cities, but had he faced the Nanda Empire, he most likely would have died.



Which he isn't doing because not only is his army exhausted, he would be facing an empire far stronger than the outskirts cities he captured, for as impressive as those conquests were, he almost died doing so (receiving the famous arrow that almost killed him in modern day Multan) and these confrontations were the reason why his army nearly mutinied and forced him to go back. They weren't easy by any means and he was about to confront an even more powerful centralised state that was quite comparable to the Achaemenids at least militarily and in terms of infrastructure. So yes, it really is implausible even if Alexander decides to use Asians and send back his Greek army.

In Arrian, the army mutinied more because they felt their king was displeased with them than out of fear of the Nanda. Moreover, once he'd finished assembling the army of Asians and consolidating his foothold in India, he would no longer be overextended, and would be able to campaign down the Ganges with a much closer base. Alexander almost died doing everything he did; the Indians aren't special in that regard, and I don't think the chance of Alexander being killed in combat is really strongly correlated to the danger of the opponents overall strength. He took as many near lethal blows fighting Thracians as he did Persians, so it's not like greater enemy strength always means greater personal danger to the commander. Moreover, between Alexander's stronger army relative to his initial force, and the reduced space of the Nanda, the Indians may well not be able to put up enough major battles as the Persians before key parts of the state are overrun.
 

Toraach

Banned
It would be great to see a timeline about Alex in Italy but diffrent.

Alex conquered Carthage and Sicily. He started invasion of Italy. But it is not an easy. "Hill tribes" are against him just as they had been against his uncle and namesake twenty years earlier and similar to Alex's own bogged campaign in Bactria. Finally he prevailed against them. He marched further north. Where was the biggest polity of Italy called Rome. Romans knowing of Alexander mobilised every forces they could muster. Finally 12th september of 309BC the armies meet near Praeneste. After a lomg and bloody fight Alexander leads a yet another charge of hetairoi. And he falls from a roman spear... The battle is disrupted. Both exhaused sides stopped. Generals lead makedons south already ploting what next. The Romans got even bigger confidence and belief on their divine favor tjan in OTL. They killed the ruler of the World!
 

Maoistic

Banned
In Arrian, the army mutinied more because they felt their king was displeased with them than out of fear of the Nanda.

No, he reports that it is because of the difficulty of the enemies (the Nanda) lying ahead:

"It was reported that the country beyond the river Hyphasis was fertile, and that the men were good agriculturists, and gallant in war; and that they conducted their own political affairs in a regular and constitutional manner. For the multitude was ruled by the aristocracy, who governed in no respect contrary to the rules of moderation. It was also stated that the men of that district possessed a much greater number of elephants than the other Indians, and that those men were of very great stature, and excelled in valour. These reports excited in Alexander an ardent desire to advance farther; but the spirit of the Macedonians now began to flag, when they saw the king raising one labour after another, and incurring one danger after another."

And should be pointed out that Arrian's statement comes after the hard fought battles of Hydaspes against Porus - who in actuality took advantage of Alexander - and against the well-fortified city of Sangala.

Moreover, once he'd finished assembling the army of Asians and consolidating his foothold in India, he would no longer be overextended, and would be able to campaign down the Ganges with a much closer base.

Why didn't the Persians do the same thing then in the centuries in which they ruled the same area as Alexander?

Alexander almost died doing everything he did; the Indians aren't special in that regard, and I don't think the chance of Alexander being killed in combat is really strongly correlated to the danger of the opponents overall strength. He took as many near lethal blows fighting Thracians as he did Persians, so it's not like greater enemy strength always means greater personal danger to the commander. Moreover, between Alexander's stronger army relative to his initial force, and the reduced space of the Nanda, the Indians may well not be able to put up enough major battles as the Persians before key parts of the state are overrun.

Point to me any wound facing the Thracians comparable to the arrow wound he got in the siege of Multan. The only time outside of India where Alexander was in danger of dying was from his head wound in Gaza. And he died not long after he returned from his Indian campaign.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
Regarding a second Indian campaign-once Alexander finishes his campaigns in Arabia and Carthage and completes his various planned projects, I can see him making a second attempt to conquer India. With more men, supplies, and probably a naval component as well.

As for Italy-I don't see why Alexander would not campaign there-get Magna Grecia under his control and then campaign northwards.

The Roman's at this time would probably submit to him and declare some sort of vassalage or fealty in any case.

As for conquering China-I'm not sure if that's possible. Alexander could probably conquer more of Central Asia and modern day OTL western China, but he'd have to march thousands of miles to get to the main Chinese states of the period.

I don't see why he couldn't conduct another campaign in the Iberian peninsula-conquering the various Carthaginian cities and any Greek colonies in the region that remained.

And I can also see him after having conquered enough deciding to settle down and start administrating-building roads, temples, cities, and other projects.

The man was nothing if not extraordinarily energetic and ambitious.
 
Top