WI: Alexander the Great doesn't die in 232 BC?

So, Alexander the Great has been spared from whatever disease killed him. What is his next move? Conquer more? Sit back and enjoy the fruits of his new empire?

Also, what happens to the Hellenic Civilization he - unintentionally - founded? Does the Hellenization of Anatolia/the Levant take place faster with the known world united under one ruler? Or does Greek culture get sidelined and another culture replace it?
 
hey methuselah lived to be 969 ( give or take 900 years) so 124 should be easy!

It's interesting that a lot of those Biblical ages make sense as actual ages if the numbers indicate their age in (lunar) months, not years:

930 lunar months (Adam) = 75 years
912 lunar months (Seth) = 73 years
905 lunar months (Enosh) = 73 years
910 lunar months (Cainan) = 73 years
895 lunar months (Mahalalel) = 72 years
962 lunar months (Jared) = 77 years
365 lunar months (Enoch) = 29 years (disappeared)
969 lunar months (Methusalah) = 78 years
777 lunar months (Lamech) = 62 years
950 lunar months (Noah) = 76 years
 
Last edited:
So, Alexander the Great has been spared from whatever disease killed him. What is his next move? Conquer more? Sit back and enjoy the fruits of his new empire?

Also, what happens to the Hellenic Civilization he - unintentionally - founded? Does the Hellenization of Anatolia/the Levant take place faster with the known world united under one ruler? Or does Greek culture get sidelined and another culture replace it?

Sly Dessert Fox has a timeline that may be of interest to you called Of Satraps and Kings. In it, he posits that Alexander would pretty much try to keep conquering until it killed him. Which, given his lifestyle it probably would.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Disregarding typos and biblical stuff... There have been a lot of threads on this topic, @CastIron. The search function is your friend. ;)

Personally, I have always maintained that - for the time being - "resting on his laurels" was NOT what Alexander was planning. At the time of his death, he was planning a campaign to conquer Arabia, while commissioning a warfleet to be used against Carthage later. The plan was to conquer (at least the coast of) Arabia, and then prepare to strike against Carthage and become hegemon in the west as well as the east. Besides conquest, further goals included the construction of a road in north Africa, from Alexandria to the Pillars of Herakles (meaning the strait of Gibraltar), and the restoration of the Canal of the Pharaos connecting the Red Sea to the Nile delta (and thus to the Med).

If Alexander lives long enough, the culture of his vast empire would be a very interesing thing indeed. Expect cultural cross-pollenation, exchange of ideas, etc. The mere fact that an empire unites many cultures (and has a ruler fond of cultural hybridisation and the building of good roads) will assure that there will be more east-west exchange than we saw in OTL.

Do keep in mind that given Alexander's dangerous lifestyle - both the martial aspect and the 'getting sickeningly drunk' aspect - severely increase the chances of him dying young anyway. Even if he eludes his OTL demise, there's a good chance he dies relatively shortly afterwards anyway. (EDIT: I see @Practical Lobster already pointed that out. And yes, Of Satraps and Kings is an extremely well-done timeline on this subject. Heartily recommended!)
 

Don Quijote

Banned
So, Alexander the Great has been spared from whatever disease killed him. What is his next move? Conquer more? Sit back and enjoy the fruits of his new empire?
Alexander was not one for sitting back. He may have paused for another year or so consolidating his current conquests, but after that he will go for more. He apparently had plans for Arabia, but I believe his main focus would have been conquering Carthage, and extending Macedonian rule, or at least influence, as far as the mouth of the Mediterranean.

Also, what happens to the Hellenic Civilization he - unintentionally - founded? Does the Hellenization of Anatolia/the Levant take place faster with the known world united under one ruler? Or does Greek culture get sidelined and another culture replace it?
He won't succeed in conquering the known world, interesting as the possibility may be, but Hellenistic practices will certainly be more widely spread. However, being widely spread is different to being deeply rooted. Hellenistic culture never became dominant in the greater part of Alexander's Empire, only leaving a permanent mark on the regions around the eastern Mediterranean. Further east, Macedonian rule was fairly brief and made much less of an impact. Assuming this larger empire follows a similar path to the OTL empire after Alexander's death, and falls apart into Successor States, it's possible that some of these could last longer than OTL. It's also possible that they could collapse more quickly, but you can't say with certainty what would have happened.
 
I would love to see a TL were Alexander, after having conquered Arabia and the west (Carthage, Rome, Spain, Gaul) decides to go back to Asia and lead one great attack on India. Maybe he'll be more succesful there if he uses the ressources of his gigantic new empire. After India, who knows? He could turn on China and claim to have conquered the whole word since he knows nothing of the Americas.

However, I expect such a world empire to fall even faster than his OTL empire. Perhaps Alexander lives long enough to see the meltdown of the oikumene.
 
How much Alexander can realistically conquer if he would live longer? On some point there would be several rebels and probably some plots against him by his own military leadership. Rome probably was on this point too weak resist Alexander's conquest.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
How much Alexander can realistically conquer if he would live longer? On some point there would be several rebels and probably some plots against him by his own military leadership. Rome probably was on this point too weak resist Alexander's conquest.

Fact is, he had just solved most internal restistance, and he was actually rather popular with the general populace. If Alexander lives, mass revolts aren't that likely, and besides Kassandros, enemies in his own ranks have been dealt with. It's his demise that's the big threat.

If he lives longer, he can realistically take Arabia and North Africa for sure. Trouble had been brewing in northern Anatolia (parts of which were not under his control), so i can see him mounting an expedition there, pushing the northern border of his empire to the Caucasus. The Samnites in Italy had killed his uncle (Alexandros the Molossian), and revenge was in the cards. Considering that, an alliance with Rome is more likely than a fight with Rome. Alexander might be inclined to annex the Greek cities in southern Italy to his empire, and then divide the lands between there and Rome between himself and the Romans.

Potential other steps, though less likely, include annexing Greek cities in the far west, such as Massalia, and launching an expedition to annex the Crimea and the western coast of the Black Sea (which also had Greek settlements). All this in light of a desire to unite all Greeks under his aegis. Finally, I can see an expedition against the Illyrians happening.

A second expedition to conquer India would remain a fond wish of Alexander, but I don't see it happening. By the time he'd be ready to give it a second try, Chandragupta Maurya would already have taken control there. So let's consider: Indian armies were vast, the terrain was largely unfamiliar to Alexander's troops, fighting enemies who have elephants is not fun, and Chandragupta is an extremely capable leader himself. On those grounds, I feel confident in writing off a second Indian expedition. If Alexander tries it, it'll be his doom.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
What about cross-pollination of a different kind? What if expanded trade brings new bugs from East Asia to Europe or vice versa, causing horrible things for the ecosystem?

I'm not very well-read on that subject, I'm afraid, so my knowledge here is very limited. I think we should look to OTL, and see whether this kind of thing happened, and if so, to what extent. As far as I know, closed ecosystems are the most at-risk (hence foreign organisms causing major problems in Australia etc.), but I'm not sure to what extent it was an issue within the sphere of Eurasia itself.
 
It's interesting that a lot of those Biblical ages make sense as actual ages if the numbers indicate their age in (lunar) months, not years:

930 lunar months (Adam) = 75 years
912 lunar months (Seth) = 73 years
905 lunar months (Enosh) = 73 years
910 lunar months (Cainan) = 73 years
895 lunar months (Mahalalel) = 72 years
962 lunar months (Jared) = 77 years
365 lunar months (Enoch) = 29 years (disappeared)
969 lunar months (Methusalah) = 78 years
777 lunar months (Lamech) = 62 years
950 lunar months (Noah) = 76 years
but its much cooler if its in human years and not dog years or lunar months and stuff ;)
but yeah... lunar was the standard back in the day
 
Sly Dessert Fox has a timeline that may be of interest to you called Of Satraps and Kings. In it, he posits that Alexander would pretty much try to keep conquering until it killed him. Which, given his lifestyle it probably would.
I'm not sure he would continue conquering until it killed him, I think he was prepared to stop the aggressive expansion after securing Arabia, Carthage, Magna Graecia, and probably for the added prestige, the Greek and Phoenician colonies on the Spanish coast, which all had some strategic/economic consolidation value. Afterwards, he'd probbaly content himself with more campaigns of consolidation mixed in with some actual governing: Cappadocia (etc.), maybe another campaign in India to deal with Chandragupta Maurya. There's a good chance he might die during any of those campaigns, and given his lifestyle he might just keel over anyway within 20 25 years, but I think after leaving India he did show signs of winding down his conquests. Granted, winding down for Alexander still meant a lot more campaigning.
 
I'm not sure he would continue conquering until it killed him, I think he was prepared to stop the aggressive expansion after securing Arabia, Carthage, Magna Graecia, and probably for the added prestige, the Greek and Phoenician colonies on the Spanish coast, which all had some strategic/economic consolidation value. Afterwards, he'd probbaly content himself with more campaigns of consolidation mixed in with some actual governing: Cappadocia (etc.), maybe another campaign in India to deal with Chandragupta Maurya. There's a good chance he might die during any of those campaigns, and given his lifestyle he might just keel over anyway within 20 25 years, but I think after leaving India he did show signs of winding down his conquests. Granted, winding down for Alexander still meant a lot more campaigning.
Alexander in Spain? That sounds a bit crazy even for him.
 
Alexander in Spain? That sounds a bit crazy even for him.
Alexander would want the prestige of being able to say he reached the Pillars of Heracles. And in any case, it might not be anything more than a formality, wrapping up his control of the Hellenic world by making sure he gets some tribute from the Greek colonies there.
 
I think he'd invade the coastal Arabian kingdoms (successfully, probably) and Carthage (probably failing), but from there? I'm not sure. He could come back to India, but if he waits too long, it could mean he has to fight with Chandragupta Maurya. Now, Chandragupta Maurya was very good at war, destroying the Seleucids at battle, but against Alexander, he could not have had that kind of domineering victory. But Alexander could not have smashed Chandragupta Maurya like he did others. I'd say the result would be a victory for Alexander, but he would not have been able to conquer Maghada.
 
I think he'd invade the coastal Arabian kingdoms (successfully, probably) and Carthage (probably failing), but from there? I'm not sure. He could come back to India, but if he waits too long, it could mean he has to fight with Chandragupta Maurya. Now, Chandragupta Maurya was very good at war, destroying the Seleucids at battle, but against Alexander, he could not have had that kind of domineering victory. But Alexander could not have smashed Chandragupta Maurya like he did others. I'd say the result would be a victory for Alexander, but he would not have been able to conquer Maghada.
Well, even if he fails to conquer Magadha, Alexander's empire will be a lot safer with a secure eastern frontier; allies or vassals on the other side of the Indus, for example.
 
Top