Supposing Alexander didn't die of a fever, and he lived say 20 year longer, how would the ancient world have changed drastically, if at all?
I once wrote a TL on the subject. You can find it right here.
Supposing Alexander didn't die of a fever, and he lived say 20 year longer, how would the ancient world have changed drastically, if at all?
Nothing came up when you searched for it? That's weird. This is a pretty popular topic, so it has been discussed a fair amount -- that doesn't mean that it can't be discussed again though!
Another timeline you may want to look at in addition to OnkelWillie's is Endymion's "Blood and Gold." I've tried my hand at this as well, and would like to again at some point -- it's a fun scenario.
There are two schools of thought, basically -- that Alexander keeps conquering and conquering and conquering, or that Alexander for the rest of his life has to fight tooth and nail to keep the conquests he's already won. I tend to favor the first; I think the Arabian coastline would have been added to his empire, and while he would have had to reestablish Macedonian control in places like Thrace that were somewhat loosening from his rule in 323, he could have expanded his empire west towards Carthage and Magna Graecia or east into India (I think a fun scenario is Alexander v. Chandragupta). But there's all sorts of twists you can take on it -- for instance, a good one is the idea that a second invasion of India could become Alexander's "Russia" (having Alexander = Napoleon in this scenario), after which the empire crumbles. Either way the empire surviving intact long after his death is difficult; the Argead dynasty's greatest weakness was its inability to solve the succession without it devolving into civil war. The wars of the diadochi after Alexander's death were a typical Macedonian civil war played out on a much more massive scale.