WI: Alexander the Great only cared about Egypt?

[Grokborg]

What if Alexander the Great was so impressed by Egypt that he lost interest in the rest of the Persian Empire outside of military buffer purposes, and once the conquest was over, Alexander basically sought to use the Persian Empire and his Greek territories solely to bolster Egypt? This Alexander uses every waking moment to advocate for, build, settle and reinforce Egypt. Involving Egyptians in the administration, advancing Egyptian religion and Egyptian culture and language, monuments et cetera. Also bringing in Greeks and Persians for planned cities usually named Alexandria.

 

[Evil Crusader]

It all falls down pretty quickly, because people tend not to be very interested in working hard to enrich other places.

 

[Grokborg]

It all falls down pretty quickly, because people tend not to be very interested in working hard to enrich other places.

But... pretty much every empire was people being compelled or incentivized into working hard to enrich other places.

The whole Persian empire was accustomed to paying tribute to a distant king already.

Alexander could definitely sell the idea of Egypt as a land of opportunity for Greeks, as the Ptolemaic and Seleucid diadochi did to Egypt and Persia respectively when they ruled it.

However, he could set it off in a different direction than the Ptolemies, and have more native Egyptian involvement as well. The Greeks also had a longer history in Egypt than Babylon or Persia, so Egypt might even be more palatable than Babylon as a center of the Macedonian empire. The travel time to Greece is also shorter by sea, from the Nile delta

Doesn't mean Egypt will hold the rest of the Macedonian Empire forever, the geography is difficult and Alexander's contemporaries wanted territories and mini-empires. Still, it could have some interesting development.

 

[Memoriam Damnatio]

What if Alexander the Great was so impressed by Egypt that he lost interest in the rest of the Persian Empire outside of military buffer purposes

This would require a fundamentally different Alexander than the one that existed historically. Alexander didn't conquer for territory or resources or material considerations, but for the sake of glory. To have his name be remembered forever. This is why he was reported to be angry with his father's conquest of Greece because it looked like he would be denied the glory of the conquest himself. Alexander didn't care about the glory of the lands he conquered except in so far as they burnished his own glory. If Alexander was overawed by the wonder of Egypt it wouldn't stop his conquests only drive them on as it meant that there was more glory to be won.

To deal with the scenario, though, you could have Alexander's army be the one to hold him back if they mutiny earlier. On the eve of Gaugamela Darius is supposed to have offered to partition the empire with Alexander. Let's say Alexander's troops force him to accept the offer (this also butterflies Alexander's early death). The two centres of the empire would be the Hellenic cities around the Aegean and Egypt. With Anatolia and the Levant acting as buffers and connecting the empire by land. Alexander's rule would be fairly stable in Egypt, the local elites had tried to throw off Persian rule several times including with the help of the Greeks. Alexander was recognised as Pharaoh and generally did a good job appeasing the locals.

I don't see Alexander running Egypt too differently from the Ptolemy's although without the diadochi more colonists arrive in Egypt. There would be a lot of syncretism with both sides conflating their god's with one another, Zeus as Ra, Hermes as Thoth, Hades as Osiris, etc. There would also be a strong Hellenic influence on Egyptian culture. Classical and Hellenic Greece had a strong sense of cultural superiority (as tends to happen when you think everyone else just bar bar bars like a sheep) and as such the Egyptian elites would be Hellenised, with their kids raised in a syncretic but Hellenic culture. The towns and cities would probably become predominantly Greek, as colonists moved in and natives assimilated, but the countryside would remain Coptic, although with notable Greek influence.

Beyond that, it's really a question of the wider implications of Alexander not going east. How long does the rump Persian empire survive? Do the Mauryan's still rise in India? Can the Macedonians keep their empire together? I suspect either the empire holds together and slowly solidifies its control of the Anatolian interior and Levant by planting cities there (named Alexandria of course), or it splits into multiple Diadochi, with power centres in Macedonia, Syria, and Egypt. In the end (barring some butterflies) the Romans still conquer them and dominate the Mediterranean though.

 

[Evil Crusader]

But... pretty much every empire was people being compelled or incentivized into working hard to enrich other places.

The whole Persian empire was accustomed to paying tribute to a distant king already.

Alexander could definitely sell the idea of Egypt as a land of opportunity for Greeks, as the Ptolemaic and Seleucid diadochi did to Egypt and Persia respectively when they ruled it.

However, he could set it off in a different direction than the Ptolemies, and have more native Egyptian involvement as well. The Greeks also had a longer history in Egypt than Babylon or Persia, so Egypt might even be more palatable than Babylon as a center of the Macedonian empire. The travel time to Greece is also shorter by sea, from the Nile delta

Doesn't mean Egypt will hold the rest of the Macedonian Empire forever, the geography is difficult and Alexander's contemporaries wanted territories and mini-empires. Still, it could have some interesting development.

Pretty much every empire was people working hard to enrich the ruling caste and their homeland; not the ruling caste working hard to enrich another land that they are compelled into inhabiting. You may recall the less than awesome reaction to Alexander's desire to create a new mixed ruling class; this is worse and pretty insulting from a cultural chauvinistic standpoint.
People are accepting of going to Egypt if they cannot hold Persia and to have an exalted cultural status, but this is neither.

 

[Grokborg]

This would require a fundamentally different Alexander than the one that existed historically. Alexander didn't conquer for territory or resources or material considerations, but for the sake of glory. To have his name be remembered forever. This is why he was reported to be angry with his father's conquest of Greece because it looked like he would be denied the glory of the conquest himself. Alexander didn't care about the glory of the lands he conquered except in so far as they burnished his own glory. If Alexander was overawed by the wonder of Egypt it wouldn't stop his conquests only drive them on as it meant that there was more glory to be won.

The considerations you bring up are important historical background, but alternate history wise, I think changing the mind of one person, is one of the easiest PODs there is to justify. It's not like he'd suddenly become humble, he'd just have a new idea of megalomania focused on one place, with empire-style glory being obvious with the Pyramids.

That said, perhaps if Alexander became obsessed with Egypt specifically, that could be paired with a conquest of Carthage and/or Arabia scenario, and maybe some operations up the Nile, if he's trying to shore that up as the center of his empire. So he'd maybe do 3 major campaigns and each time he'd return to Egypt, administrate for a bit, declare the founding of a few new Alexandrias, and go on campaign again.

To deal with the scenario, though, you could have Alexander's army be the one to hold him back if they mutiny earlier. On the eve of Gaugamela Darius is supposed to have offered to partition the empire with Alexander. Let's say Alexander's troops force him to accept the offer (this also butterflies Alexander's early death). The two centres of the empire would be the Hellenic cities around the Aegean and Egypt. With Anatolia and the Levant acting as buffers and connecting the empire by land. Alexander's rule would be fairly stable in Egypt, the local elites had tried to throw off Persian rule several times including with the help of the Greeks. Alexander was recognised as Pharaoh and generally did a good job appeasing the locals.

Beyond that, it's really a question of the wider implications of Alexander not going east. How long does the rump Persian empire survive? Do the Mauryan's still rise in India? Can the Macedonians keep their empire together? I suspect either the empire holds together and slowly solidifies its control of the Anatolian interior and Levant by planting cities there (named Alexandria of course), or it splits into multiple Diadochi, with power centres in Macedonia, Syria, and Egypt. In the end (barring some butterflies) the Romans still conquer them and dominate the Mediterranean though.

I think the Persian Empire would have to be fully defeated by Alexander or it would gather its forces to strike again effectively.

If Alexander conquered the whole Persian Empire but focused on Egypt, the eastern satrapies would basically gain autonomy if he's not in Babylon. Though it is not an immediate threat as there is quite some time until Chandragupta.

Pretty much every empire was people working hard to enrich the ruling caste and their homeland; not the ruling caste working hard to enrich another land that they are compelled into inhabiting. You may recall the less than awesome reaction to Alexander's desire to create a new mixed ruling class; this is worse and pretty insulting from a cultural chauvinistic standpoint.
People are accepting of going to Egypt if they cannot hold Persia and to have an exalted cultural status, but this is neither.

There are ways Alexander could sell the idea even to his Greece-centric allies. He has the resources of an empire to divert around. If the Macedonian army and aristocrats get financial or territorial incentives and Hellenistic urban centers, they'll be mostly happy. Also, there was more of a rivalry between Persians and Greeks than between Egyptians and Greeks. Egyptians weren't the ruling class of the rival empire, but subjects of a popular and developed region that had a significant Greek minority already, long before the mercenaries and wars.

 

[Evil Crusader]

There are ways Alexander could sell the idea even to his Greece-centric allies. He has the resources of an empire to divert around. If the Macedonian army and aristocrats get financial or territorial incentives and Hellenistic urban centers, they'll be mostly happy. Also, there was more of a rivalry between Persians and Greeks than between Egyptians and Greeks. Egyptians weren't the ruling class of the rival empire, but subjects of a popular and developed region that had a significant Greek minority already, long before the mercenaries and wars.

I believe you're deeply underestimating the prestige that Persia commanded and are now trying to sell something different than the OP.
Greeks would definitely like to go rule Egypt as Hellenic nobles and send some wealth back home; Greeks would much less like to go rule Egypt as Coptic nobles and not give a penny back home.
And Greeks definitely respected Persia far more than Egypt, just not enough to accept being ruled or - After beating them - marrying into their ranks.