Alexander the Great doesn't die and lives to 80s and conquers North India, Carthage, Italy

DracoLazarus

DracoLazarus

Sarrugi lugal said:
@MegaByyte @DracoLazarus @speaker-to-trolls @Veranius @SlyDessertFox @EnglishCanuck @Cymry-Korean @SlyDessertFox

How would Europe ,India and mediterranean develop with this pan Hellenic empire without Rome and Mauryas?
Click to expand...
Well, you could see an Arverne led confederation become a major power and a later unifier of Gaul.
Magna Graecia probably ends up more thoroughly Hellenized and might reach up further North. The Po basin however winds up re-celticised. Overall, the Italic culture group may be reduced to the Etruscans.
India, well, I'd have to find what led to the end of the Indo-Greek Kingdom, but you could just see a Bengali state stretch their hegemony. Culturally, the Greeks themselves would have little impact imo since there was an Indo-Greek Kingdom IOTL. It's more likely something related to the Maurya absence.
 

Hannibal The Bannable

He wouldn’t conquer Spain save for Punic and Greek colonies . same for Gaul . He would probably let the Greek colonies be Vassals while early Punic defectors could be given a similar status . Arabia , He Could Conquer the Entire Coast and the Qedarites of Arabia but he would be a madman to try to conquer further Inland. Italy would be conquered entirely with maybe save for the Po Valley ( atleast the Western Parts ) and Venetia . He would probably expand into the Balkans but not by Much. He would probably conquer the entire Indo Gangetic Plain if he tries but moving Further Inland even in North india is in Doubt.
anyways after he dies there will be a civil war within years . His son or a powerful general would probably be able to hold Iran , The Middle east and Anatolia and Egypt while Greece secedes and might return to city states along with India under a General whose successors might eventually pull off a Delhi Sultan and conquer the subcontinent . Carthage and Italy would end up under Local Rulers or Greek Generals with heavy Greek Influence.

The Iranian based empire would be very Persian especially if its Alexander the son . The Indian Empire would trade some of the Persian for Indian and would be Greco Indian with some Persian influence. Italy would mostly be Greek with local rulers adopting it as a lingua franca along with Greek Generals . The Punic Colonies would depend on if the rulers are Punic , Berber or Greek.
 
Veranius

Veranius

Sarrugi lugal said:
@MegaByyte @DracoLazarus @speaker-to-trolls @Veranius @SlyDessertFox @EnglishCanuck @Cymry-Korean @SlyDessertFox

How would Europe ,India and mediterranean develop with this pan Hellenic empire without Rome and Mauryas?
Click to expand...
I believe I attempted to answer this in my earlier post, but in short:

Alexander becomes the ultimate conveyor of legitimacy, far more than Caesar and Augustus ever dreamed of.
Greek itself may be less widespread due to Alexander's efforts at promoting East-West syncretism.
Non-Greek reactions to Alexandrian rule would be more widespread and likely more successful (earlier Parthians, perhaps), with every notable looking to Alexander's example of massive conquests as an impetus for forging their own vast empires. As such, a (possibly even more successful) version of Chandragupta Maurya would, I feel, be even more likely to appear given this.
And with the Alexandrians stretched far beyond their limits, the Celts would gain more traction, aided no doubt immensely by the absence of Rome and the inability for the Alexandrians to stop them.
 
Alamannicus

Alamannicus

I see such an Empire being impossible to maintain and a state that simply cannot remain united due to the nature of Macedonian politics and intrigue- once the charismatic and awe-inspiring persona of Alexander is removed from the equation, the whole thing will come toppling down.

However, if Alexander is somehow able to conquer most of the Mediterranean, we would see Greek become the dominant language of the Ancient World- perhaps what we know today as "Koine Greek" would incorporate more Punic, Tuscan, and Latin words into it, as it would have a greater degree of Western influence than it did historically.

Alexander the Great was one in a million. He was born in exactly the right time, with the right set of skills, and handed nearly the best set of cards in the Ancient World. There is absolutely no guarantee that his children and their children will be the exact same, or that they will not be taken out in the brutal world of the Macedonian court. The Satrap system could by some degree of time, but depending on how decentralized Alex would model it, Satraps could simply break away whenever they pleased, as seen with later the Seleucids and Bactria.

I'm inclined to believe we'd even get a War of the Diadochi cranked up to 50, thunder dome style. These would be some of the bloodiest conflicts in human history, spanning centuries if no Roman Empire ever develops. Perhaps an Argead-led state could remain in Macedon proper, but I find it nearly inevitable that the far-flung provinces of this Pan-Hellenic Empire will splinter and revolt, proclaiming their own generals as Kings.
 
SlyDessertFox

SlyDessertFox

Sarrugi lugal said:
Wrong
Imperial Romans army created for to field warfare was very different from Republican or greek armies created mountain warfare

\
Click to expand...
??? The Roman armies were adapted to fight in the hills and uneven terrain of Italy, in contrast to the rigid Greek hoplites that operated most effectively on open, flat fields.
 

Deleted member 4539

Honestly this would create a completely different Europe and a very different Asia-smashing Rome would radically alter the future of Europe but Persia and Bactria already had historical Alexandrian rulers and North India would just see the ensuing dynasty as one of the parade of western conquerors who briefly declared themselves King of Everything before being overthrown.

I can definitely imagine the Empire splitting into three with a Greek controlled West, a Persian controlled East and finally an Indian Empire which everyone decides is a write off. Each of these splinter states would be HUGE though so I would imagine that would only happen if he had an heir or two who lived up to his legacy, this is a best case scenario, I'd imagine. God knows what you'd have next with a Greek speaking West and a Persia that had all the old Achaemenid territories again.

No idea though, really, it's be a brave new world.

Ok quick question; lots of talk about the Celts ruining things for the Western Alexandrids- are the Celts at this time THAT effective that the resources of some kind of Pan-Med empire wouldn't be able to hold them off?
 

Socrates

Veranius said:
I believe I attempted to answer this in my earlier post, but in short:

Alexander becomes the ultimate conveyor of legitimacy, far more than Caesar and Augustus ever dreamed of.
Greek itself may be less widespread due to Alexander's efforts at promoting East-West syncretism.
Click to expand...
I don't see this. Alexander's syncretism was based on using the Greek language. Hence the Greek speaking colonies put everywhere, and why it was Greek men marrying local women, as the fathers would be responsible for organizing education of their children. The man was smart enough to realise you need a common language for syncretism to happen. Otherwise you just create multiculturalism, not syncretism.
 

PsyloSurgeon

Banned
Sarrugi lugal said:
Please answer the follow up questions and like and share
View attachment 683221
Alexander doesn't die and lives to 80s like Ptolemy
He conquers Arabia
He conquers North India
Chandragupta Maurya doesn't rise since he created his first army from power vacuum created by death of Alexander in his indian provinces
Nanda army was exaggerated by Plutarch who also said persian army was 1,000,000 at Gaugamela Nandas likely bring an army of 100,000 at best due to logistics of ancient times and lose
He besieges and conquers Carthage as Xanthippus's reforms haven't yet happened
He conquers Italy Since Romans are not yet big and legion hasn't yet been invented
He conquers Illyria
He conquers all of mediterranean coast
He conquers Bosporian kingdom in crimea
He conquers kushite nubia
He commisions Circumnavigation of Africa
He Constructs of a monumental tomb for him and his father to match the greatest of the pyramids of Egypt
He settles greeks in all non greek regions of his empire
He consolidates his empire by establishing loyal satrapies
He dies in his 80s and his son Alexander IV becomes king in his 50s and fully learnt in the crafts of his father

How long will this empire last

How would Europe ,India and mediterranean develop with this pan Hellenic empire without Rome and Mauryas?
Click to expand...
This isn't even technologically possible. This would just lead to imperial overstretch and implosion. The empire wouldn't itself even exist.
 
DracoLazarus

DracoLazarus

speaker-to-trolls said:
Honestly this would create a completely different Europe and a very different Asia-smashing Rome would radically alter the future of Europe but Persia and Bactria already had historical Alexandrian rulers and North India would just see the ensuing dynasty as one of the parade of western conquerors who briefly declared themselves King of Everything before being overthrown.

I can definitely imagine the Empire splitting into three with a Greek controlled West, a Persian controlled East and finally an Indian Empire which everyone decides is a write off. Each of these splinter states would be HUGE though so I would imagine that would only happen if he had an heir or two who lived up to his legacy, this is a best case scenario, I'd imagine. God knows what you'd have next with a Greek speaking West and a Persia that had all the old Achaemenid territories again.

No idea though, really, it's be a brave new world.

Ok quick question; lots of talk about the Celts ruining things for the Western Alexandrids- are the Celts at this time THAT effective that the resources of some kind of Pan-Med empire wouldn't be able to hold them off?
Click to expand...
The Romans stole their organisation from the Samnites, but their metalworking from the Celts, and we'd be talking of extremely overstretched border satrapies for a while. Massalia and Nikaia would be the only things holding up the Narbonese stretch, for example.
 

Kerney

speaker-to-trolls said:
Ok quick question; lots of talk about the Celts ruining things for the Western Alexandrids- are the Celts at this time THAT effective that the resources of some kind of Pan-Med empire wouldn't be able to hold them off?
Click to expand...

If the Empire is stretched thin. The Celts beat the Greeks on numerous occasions and the Romans a fair few times and more importantly settled. You could see a Greek military defeated and then a conquest of half of Italy as those Etruscans and Latins are disarmed as well as a complete conquest of Spain. Meanwhile, the overstretched Empire is fighting in Afghanistan while the more local armies are fighting against the Carthaginian or Syracusan revolt.

So yeah, it could happen reasonably.

But I'm sure someone might tell me I'm wrong.
 
Last edited:

Harshavardhana

Even though the scenario is pretty ASB, I can say the empire is going to split up the moment he dies. Maybe in 3 different ways like a European one, a Persian one and an Indian one.
 

Harshavardhana

Even if it is ASB it would be quite interesting to see how the Greek culture influences both Persian and Indian ones. Would the Parthians be much stronger as a result of adopting Macedonian infantry and cavalry tactics? What kind of dude would be Chandragupta Maurya in such a scenario or would he even exist or replaced by another guy or would it be another one of Alexander's generals becoming emperor?

So many events that can take place differently.
 

dandan_noodles

SlyDessertFox said:
??? The Roman armies were adapted to fight in the hills and uneven terrain of Italy, in contrast to the rigid Greek hoplites that operated most effectively on open, flat fields.
Click to expand...
Greek hoplites worked great in uneven terrain; have you looked at Greece? It's even more mountainous than Italy. Pike phalanxes struggled on uneven ground at times, but not enough to keep them from subjugating all Greece and then most of the Achaemenid empire.

I do think you're right that guarding mountain passes isn't as easy as OP presumes, though. There is no position you can take in the mountains that can be neither turned nor broken through; to defend against a serious invasion, you mass your army on the near side of the mountains and defeat their columns separately or else fight them while their lines of retreat are severely limited. Rivers also offer easier transportation in-theatre. Fortifications like the Phokian Wall in the major passes may be able to impose delays and the attendant losses on the invader, but only as a prelude to a decisive clash.
 

Carter I'm Yog

Banned
You're all saints. Most of you are actually answering OP's questions seriously. It is God's work you're doing here, you guys are the real heroes.
Kcirtap said:
Would the Parthians be much stronger as a result of adopting Macedonian infantry and cavalry tactics?
Click to expand...
I think, materialistically speaking, it's not the Arsacids lacked the intent to imitate Makedonian/Roman infantry tactics and gear, but they have need of an army that could run from Mesopotamia to Marw ASAP, and force marching heavy infantry has all the expected results. May see a palace guard elite regiment in Makedonian style if the Arsacids still clock around in this ASB TL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top