What If Alexander the Great had not died?

[Nicholas]

Recently I've been pondering the question of how much more territory Alexander could have conquered if he had not died. I simply can't see Alexander being content with his current conquests and while his troops were tired, it seems likely that he would eventually attempt further conquests. In some of my reading I've heard it claimed he might have been planning to conquer Arabia, but I would consider it unlikely because I can't see a reason he would have wanted to do so. This would seem to leave further incursions into India as the logical choice, but how far could he have gotten? This also brings up the important question of whether his empire could be maintained.

[Durthorin]

Recently I've been pondering the question of how much more territory Alexander could have conquered if he had not died. I simply can't see Alexander being content with his current conquests and while his troops were tired, it seems likely that he would eventually attempt further conquests. In some of my reading I've heard it claimed he might have been planning to conquer Arabia, but I would consider it unlikely because I can't see a reason he would have wanted to do so. This would seem to leave further incursions into India as the logical choice, but how far could he have gotten? This also brings up the important question of whether his empire could be maintained.

I'm less interested in what he would have conquered than IF he would have set up a clear line of succession and stabilized his conquests up till that time. Consider that had Alexander managed to found a dyansty with a clean line of sucession and a stable empire even if Rome had risen to the west it would have been quickly smashed and integrated into such an empire. As it was what was left of Greece managed to be one of the a short term but serious threats to Rome before they collapsed.

Had Alexander's empire been stable it would have easily continued to expand in all directions in the same way Rome did, generation after generation.

[Nicholas]

I'm less interested in what he would have conquered than IF he would have set up a clear line of succession and stabilized his conquests up till that time. Consider that had Alexander managed to found a dyansty with a clean line of sucession and a stable empire even if Rome had risen to the west it would have been quickly smashed and integrated into such an empire. As it was what was left of Greece managed to be one of the a short term but serious threats to Rome before they collapsed.

Had Alexander's empire been stable it would have easily continued to expand in all directions in the same way Rome did, generation after generation.

It would certainly have made for an interesting battle, a young upstart Rome against an Alexandrian Empire. One question that comes to mind would be whether Alexander's sucessors would have adopted some of the tactics used by the Persians. Combining large numbers of archers with a Macedonian Phalanx would certainly have been an interesting combination.

[Rusty T]

I think a far more interesting question is what if Julius Caesar had not been assassinated.

[dizzle]

I find it all very interesting.

So what killed Alexander?

[Nicholas]

I find it all very interesting.

So what killed Alexander?

Some sort of illness if I'm not mistaken, though getting shot with an arrow while taking a city in India may have had something to do with it as well.

[Durthorin]

It would certainly have made for an interesting battle, a young upstart Rome against an Alexandrian Empire. One question that comes to mind would be whether Alexander's sucessors would have adopted some of the tactics used by the Persians. Combining large numbers of archers with a Macedonian Phalanx would certainly have been an interesting combination.

The Greek Phalanx gave the Roman legions problems when they fought it. The Legion was far from the invincable machine its often chalked up as. A large portion of Roman victories are on the basis of very well disciplined troops. But on the whole the Phalanx was simply to unweildly a weapon. But the Romans always farmed out support roles to others they had little Cavalry or Archers in large degree. Persian armored heavy cavalry, horse archers with a phalnx to hold a center line. I think what your talking about is the sort of army that the vandals, huns etc came calling with.

[Nicholas]

The Greek Phalanx gave the Roman legions problems when they fought it. The Legion was far from the invincable machine its often chalked up as. A large portion of Roman victories are on the basis of very well disciplined troops. But on the whole the Phalanx was simply to unweildly a weapon. But the Romans always farmed out support roles to others they had little Cavalry or Archers in large degree. Persian armored heavy cavalry, horse archers with a phalnx to hold a center line. I think what your talking about is the sort of army that the vandals, huns etc came calling with.

That's one of the issues that I was considering. Would a united Greek Empire have been better able to counter the Romans?

[Durthorin]

That's one of the issues that I was considering. Would a united Greek Empire have been better able to counter the Romans?

Initially, yes. It would have had the manpower and resources to do so.. given that it also adapted its military to use other effective militaries it conquered.. ie cavalry, archers.. etc.. A young Roman empire would have found itself I think pretty well stomped. Factor in another historical event as well, when Rome did fight Macadonia, the Macadonians allied with Carthage who Rome was also at war with. So your talking about Rome vs Alexander's Empire + Carthage.

Also consider if A Greek Empire was expanionist in its outlook. You stated in another thread what if they had expanded West. Given that expansion from a central core often evens out over time.. One generation Ie Alexander would have pushed Eastward for as far as he could control.. then his sucessor might have pushed westward since those would have been closer/easier conquests. Alexander took the throne in 336 B.C. at that time Rome was still trying to conquer what is Italy and dealing with raids from the Gauls. At this time epriod I think they are still the Roman Republic.

[Nicholas]

Initially, yes. It would have had the manpower and resources to do so.. given that it also adapted its military to use other effective militaries it conquered.. ie cavalry, archers.. etc.. A young Roman empire would have found itself I think pretty well stomped. Factor in another historical event as well, when Rome did fight Macadonia, the Macadonians allied with Carthage who Rome was also at war with. So your talking about Rome vs Alexander's Empire + Carthage.

Also consider if A Greek Empire was expanionist in its outlook. You stated in another thread what if they had expanded West. Given that expansion from a central core often evens out over time.. One generation Ie Alexander would have pushed Eastward for as far as he could control.. then his sucessor might have pushed westward since those would have been closer/easier conquests. Alexander took the throne in 336 B.C. at that time Rome was still trying to conquer what is Italy and dealing with raids from the Gauls. At this time epriod I think they are still the Roman Republic.

That would make sense, though this again makes me wonder how much they could have conquered. If they expanded to far they would start to encounter problems with governing the territory. My feeling would be that if they solved the administrative problems they might be able to conquer Italy, but I'm not sure if it would be feasible to occupy much more territory in the long term.

[Durthorin]

That would make sense, though this again makes me wonder how much they could have conquered. If they expanded to far they would start to encounter problems with governing the territory. My feeling would be that if they solved the administrative problems they might be able to conquer Italy, but I'm not sure if it would be feasible to occupy much more territory in the long term.

The same problems Rome encountered.. then again thats one of the reasosn to expand and equal distance from your center of power in all directions. It shortens the lines of communication and supply. So if governing the Eastern lands is at the edge of your ability, expand westward. The key factor of governing a large empire like this is communications.. England's Empire upon which the sun never set was goverened by messages carried on ships so it could be done. The Greek Empire we're discussing would have to adopt the Roman road system.. etc.. But its doable. Factoring in your Greek Technology thread. If they had found a way to create steam engines. A Greek Empire linked in a hundred years after Alexander's death by a rail network moving trade, troops etc..

[Nicholas]

The same problems Rome encountered.. then again thats one of the reasosn to expand and equal distance from your center of power in all directions. It shortens the lines of communication and supply. So if governing the Eastern lands is at the edge of your ability, expand westward. The key factor of governing a large empire like this is communications.. England's Empire upon which the sun never set was goverened by messages carried on ships so it could be done. The Greek Empire we're discussing would have to adopt the Roman road system.. etc.. But its doable. Factoring in your Greek Technology thread. If they had found a way to create steam engines. A Greek Empire linked in a hundred years after Alexander's death by a rail network moving trade, troops etc..

Steam power would have changed everything of course. If they had developed steam power that would have greatly expanded the possible size of their empire.

[Mr. Christopher]

Recently I've been pondering the question of how much more territory Alexander could have conquered if he had not died. I simply can't see Alexander being content with his current conquests and while his troops were tired, it seems likely that he would eventually attempt further conquests. In some of my reading I've heard it claimed he might have been planning to conquer Arabia, but I would consider it unlikely because I can't see a reason he would have wanted to do so. This would seem to leave further incursions into India as the logical choice, but how far could he have gotten? This also brings up the important question of whether his empire could be maintained.


If Alexander the Great had not died, he'd still be alive today!

[NJon]

If Alexander the Great had not died, he'd still be alive today!

Interestingly enough, that is the most logical and basic answer to the question.

[Mr. Christopher]

Interestingly enough, that is the most logical and basic answer to the question.

Thanks, NJon, you're a good friend. :hug:

[NJon]

Thanks, NJon, you're a good friend. :hug:

Uh...
:eek:

[Mr. Christopher]

Uh...
:eek:
:kiss::hug::lol:

[NJon]

:kiss::hug::lol:

:argh:

[Mr. Christopher]

:argh:


:ale:

:dance:

[Nicholas]

:bump: