Alexander the Great lives

[Ricardolindo]

I am surprised this point of divergence has never been discussed in this forum: What if Alexander the Great had lived? Would he have conquered the Italian Peninsula, as he apparently planned to?

 

[History Learner]

I am surprised this point of divergence has never been discussed in this forum: What if Alexander the Great had lived? Would he have conquered the Italian Peninsula, as he apparently planned to?

The only thing I know about Alexander is that there is some Buddhist arguments that a living Alexander would've resulted in the introduction of Buddhism into Europe, possibly pre-empting the Monotheistic trend.

 

[Torten]

Gone back to Babylon and spent the rest of his life trying to keep his empire together.

He may have invaded some of Arabia, but I doubt he would have been able to embark on any major campaigns in the West.

 

[heraclius]

The supposed 'future plans of Alexander which he left behind' and which his generals later put out seemingly envisaged a later campaign against Carthage, which would be logical as it had been a threat to the Greek colonies in Sicily for centuries so conquering it would be a Western equivalent of his 334 - 333 BC campaign in Asia Minor to free Ionia from the Persians and then go on to crush them militarily to prevent any future attacks on Greek territory. (In practice the actual Carthaginian threat to Syracuse etc had been seen off in the mid-330s by the independently acting Greek general who they hired from Corinth, Timoleon, who then ruled Syracuse briefly but died. But Alexander would most likely have been too determined on more glory and loot to care whether his presence there was really needed.)

There was also a question of A 'rescuing' the Greek cities of southern Italy from the inland Italian tribal states , who had in 331 defeated and killed his uncle (and husband to his sister Cleopatra), king Alexander of Epirus, when he accepted an invitation to help them - defeating the S Italians would have avenged a family loss as well as added to his reputation in Greece for 'rescuing' threatened Greek peoples, which was in some need of a boost after his 'autocratic' rule as a Persian-style 'Great King' over the Achaemenid realm (including using Persian court robes, titles, and ceremonies including the formal prostration by his subjects at receptions, the 'proskynesis') which had infuriated some of his old-fashioned officers as 'adopting decadent barbarian ways' and led to incidents like his drunken murder of his close aide Cleitus and the obscure 'anti-tyrant' plot to kill him by his pages and/or his Athenian court historian Callisthenes in 327 in Afghanistan. The 'barbarian court with un-Greek customs and subservience to a despot' grievances by some in his court and army against Alexander - who arguably was trying to be 'inclusive' of eastern culture and treat the Persians with respect to aid unity, not rule as a megalomaniac despot - may or may not have included such stories seeping back to Greece from returning soldiers and stimulating resistance, as shown by the Lamian War revolt of 322 once he was safely dead. It may also have affected some of the Macedonian elite who did not share his Oriental enthusiasm , including the elderly regent Antipater or his son Cassander - A did not keep up these 'Persian' customs once he was regent of all the empire in 321-19 and Cassander always ruled his kingdom after 317 as a strictly Greek / Macedonian 'old style' king, and was even suspected of poisoning Alexander (later).

In that case Alexander may have needed to reassure the Greeks and the Macedonians back home of his 'Greek' credentials and so taken on a war vs Carthage or in Italy - or used this as an excuse if he was restless for yet more success after his planned Arabian expedition, which would logically have seen him circumnavigate the peninsula (a land march was hopelessly impractical, and his plans for one were clearly rash and unrealistic) and set up a base around Aden to revive the Egypt- Red Sea - India trade route then go on to Egypt in 322. An Alexander based in Egypt or Syria in 322-21 was in pole position to think of the West, and if the still-resisting local ex-Persian dynasts in N Anatolia (dealt with in this period and the 310s by his 'Successor' general Antigonus 'One-Eye' in real life) had been too small a target or been mopped up by his generals he could have headed to Greece/ Macedon in 321-20 to plan a war by his 'League of Corinth' Greek alliance plus his Levantine and Macedonian fleets in W Sicily. Expelling Carthage in one year, with probably a big siege of a resisting coastal stronghold like Lilybaeum or Motya and then a landing in Africa to attack Carthage the next year. The real life rising (and ruthless) Syacusan political leader Agathocles, who faced off vs Sparta in the 310s in real life, was likely to have thrown in his lot with A as a local expert. So we would get the surrender to save the capital (as when Carthage was defeated by Scipio Africanus in 202 at Zama in real life) or else a 146-style 'grand finale' of the city in flames , possibly in 318 or 317. But given the need to sort out a leaderless but rich mixture of urban ports and rural hinterland in N Africa plus soldiers to settle there and probably set up some sort of 'League of Utica' to replace a sacked Carthage as A's vassal state in the region , I can' t see Alexander having the troops or money or (failing?) health after another exhausting campaign in the heat to take on S Italy or Rome.

If he moved troops etc from the Persian lands, this would weaken his frontiers there to nomad attack or encourage local revolts - and in OTL a lot of his soldiers in the far East tried to go home in a revolt once he was dead. If he is concentrating on the West and has moved his most expert and trusted generals there to the Med, then the chance of this rises - unless he or a capable civilian chief administrator (logically Eumenes) plus the old Achaemenid court bureaucracy have worked hard to put a vigorous and capable admin and military system in place in 324- 318. (In real life, A was uninterested in this sort of backroom work and practical governance on the spot in the years after 330, when he was off on the Oxus, Sogdian, and Indian campaigns and there was chaos by the time he finally turned up in Istakr in 324 - an indictment of his civil governance capacity and/or choice of good subordinates there?) Alexander had already got a huge empire to sort out by 323, though better health (or Hephaistion not dying and making him more prone to risks and carelessness?) and capable officers to assist him, of which he had many led by the OTL chief 'Successors', MIGHT have led to success in Arabia (by a sea not a land expedition) , plus the reactivation of the Red Sea trade route with a restored Canal of Necho and a Greek base in Aden (fascinating idea to use for a scenario) and then in Carthage in c. 320-18. But any capability to take on Italy beyond a minor punitive expedition , possibly by one of his top generals to wipe out the Samnites E of Naples (who defeated Rome heavily at the Caudine Forks in 321), is dubious ; ditto the ideas of early - mid C20th historian Arnold Toynbee, who explored this possibility, of Alexander taking over first Rome then Chandragupta's N India in the 310s, is unlikely.

The Alexandrian empire might however last longer if A leaves a son (A IV was born August 323) of around ten not an unborn child, as there could then be a less faction-hit regency and no need for A's 'mentally disabled' half-brother Philip Arrhidaeus as nominal co-ruler - or even several sons. Or else A could listen to sense about the succession as early as 336 and , given the risk of him being killed in Persia, marry a Macedonian noble lady and father a son on her by 334 then turn to polygamy once he is in Asia but assign Macedon plus Anatolia to his eldest son as fully Greek by blood. Could Philip II have found him an acceptable wife in 337 if he had not been preoccupied with his own marriage to Attalus' daughter and so caused A to walk out of his court and go into exile , such as some daughter of one of the junior royal lines of the kingdom eg the Lyncestids? Or the bungled idea of a royal Macedonian marriage alliance in 337-6 with Pixodarus of Caria,a Persian vassal king of SW Anatolia who Philip needed to help with his invasion of Persia, have worked? What if P had thought of offering Alexander not his half-brother as the groom in 337, or A had been on good terms with Philip at this point so he was open with his father about offering to marry the Carian princess himself (which in OTL he did without telling Philip, who was furious) and PO agreed? That way A could marry her in 336 or else as he arrived in Caria in 334, and have a son born around 333 not in 323.

If he has a son by his Achaemenid royal wife who he married in 324 , Stateira daughter of Darius III, he is of higher rank and more likely to get Persian elite support than A IV with his 'Sogdian chief's daughter' mother Roxane ; do we have another civil war over the throne? Then one 'Persian continuation but with a Macedonian military elite' state , run by or for the son of Stateira, vs one in Macedon headed by Alexander IV (run by Cassander as Antipater is d. by this point) and/or a breakaway state in Egypt led by Ptolemy? If the 323-16 struggles are avoided in this scenario, we have the capable Perdiccas , Craterus, and Eumenes all still alive so the Successors will be different in identity - and if Alexander has had time to finish off Carthage and/ or the Samnites we have a clearer run for Rome. We still end up with a politico-military mess , unless the Alexandrian central govt can hold onto a viable central state in approx the Seleucid lands of the C3rd (plus Macedon?), but a different one from reality. So does the Roman Republic move into the Carthaginian sphere of action earlier in the C3rd to mop up its resources, while the Successors (this time including A's own sons and grandsons) wear out Greek resources in civil wars?

I was thinking of Alexandrian survival possibilities when I was in my teens and reading Mary Renault's books on him - but Rome proved more attractive.

 

[Max Sinister]

If his survival really leads to the long-lived Greco-Indian empire his fans want to see, we'd have a mini-globalization with exchange of ideas. Greeks may learn about Buddhism, Indians may start to worship Greek gods. Why not? They did so with Christian saints, angels, other biblical characters...

 

[Indicus]

If his survival really leads to the long-lived Greco-Indian empire his fans want to see, we'd have a mini-globalization with exchange of ideas. Greeks may learn about Buddhism, Indians may start to worship Greek gods. Why not? They did so with Christian saints, angels, other biblical characters...

In our timeline there was some Indian worship of Greek gods and also elaborate syncretism during the Indo-Greek and Kushan periods, and there’s been some speculation it had a lasting impact on Hinduism (though this history is very politically fraught).

By this point worship of the Vedic gods who have clear Indo-European counterparts had largely declined, with the obvious exception of Saraswati (clearly analogous to Athena) who is widely worshipped to this day. So the clear analogues of Indo-European gods would not really be made. We do know that the Greeks though Krishna was the Indian form of Hercules - doesn’t make much sense, but them both being earth-dwelling gods who killed lots of monsters was enough, I guess - so I suspect those kinds of connections are how we’d get entry of Greek gods into Hinduism and Hindu gods into Hellenistic religion.

 

[Makemakean]

I did once have this idea based on Tegmark's multiverse hypothesis about how "every universe that is mathematically possible exists in some sense out there," and how technically, this means that there must be a universe out there where Alexander just keeps on winning and winning and winning and going further and further East. Was going to be a recount of how Alexander first makes his way through India, winning and winning against the odds, down through Burma, Thailand, and Vietnam, still winning, still winning, up through China, claiming the Mandate of Heaven, founds Alexandria on the Yangtze, gets his troops to follow him on further north, up to and over the Bering Straits, he is somehow able to keep them from mutiny, and he just goes on and on and on through the North American continent, founding Alexandria on the Potomac, before finally standing looking East at the horizon.

 

[Roger II]

In our timeline there was some Indian worship of Greek gods and also elaborate syncretism during the Indo-Greek and Kushan periods, and there’s been some speculation it had a lasting impact on Hinduism (though this history is very politically fraught).

By this point worship of the Vedic gods who have clear Indo-European counterparts had largely declined, with the obvious exception of Saraswati (clearly analogous to Athena) who is widely worshipped to this day. So the clear analogues of Indo-European gods would not really be made. We do know that the Greeks though Krishna was the Indian form of Hercules - doesn’t make much sense, but them both being earth-dwelling gods who killed lots of monsters was enough, I guess - so I suspect those kinds of connections are how we’d get entry of Greek gods into Hinduism and Hindu gods into Hellenistic religion.

I mean Kushan art is pretty heavily influenced by Hellenistic art (at least NW Kushan art) and some of that recurs in the art of Mathura to a degree. So you might see a stronger Indo-Greek sculptural tradition in large swathes of northern India and emulation along the fringes, leading to a sort of North-South split in Indian sculptural traditions.

 

[Elektronaut]

I think it's worth bearing in mind that it took nearly two decades after Alexander's death IOTL, and the total collapse of any semblance of a central kingship, for the diadochi to start declaring themselves outright independent rulers.

I think even the OTL empire would suffer at the margins with a smooth succession, but the notion that we would just get something approaching OTL levels whatever the succession is like is seriously overegging the pudding.

 

[Roger II]

I think it's worth bearing in mind that it took nearly two decades after Alexander's death IOTL, and the total collapse of any semblance of a central kingship, for the diadochi to start declaring themselves outright independent rulers.

I think even the OTL empire would suffer at the margins with a smooth succession, but the notion that we would just get something approaching OTL levels whatever the succession is like is seriously overegging the pudding.

I mean I think some level of splits/fracture is inevitable but more because of the limits of how big pre-gunpowder/early modern empires *could feasibly get and stay given available tech and manpower*

 

[Elektronaut]

I mean I think some level of splits/fracture is inevitable but more because of the limits of how big pre-gunpowder/early modern empires *could feasibly get and stay given available tech and manpower*

The behaviour of Greece before, during, and immediately after Alexander's reign suggests it would be permanently restive and would be very difficult to make work for an empire centred on the Euphrates.

But the Persians held almost all of the rest together for a couple of centuries. They even managed to hold onto Taxila and the Indus Valley for quite a while.

 

[Ricardolindo]

In our timeline there was some Indian worship of Greek gods and also elaborate syncretism during the Indo-Greek and Kushan periods, and there’s been some speculation it had a lasting impact on Hinduism (though this history is very politically fraught).

By this point worship of the Vedic gods who have clear Indo-European counterparts had largely declined, with the obvious exception of Saraswati (clearly analogous to Athena) who is widely worshipped to this day. So the clear analogues of Indo-European gods would not really be made. We do know that the Greeks though Krishna was the Indian form of Hercules - doesn’t make much sense, but them both being earth-dwelling gods who killed lots of monsters was enough, I guess - so I suspect those kinds of connections are how we’d get entry of Greek gods into Hinduism and Hindu gods into Hellenistic religion.

argues the extent of Indo-Greek rule in India is often understated and that areas often marked as vassal or raided in maps were probably under solid Indo-Greek rule for a century. Do you agree?