What if Alexander the Great did not die?

Darkest

Banned
Arabia would have fallen, the coastline at least, and the actual civilized areas down south. It would have taken Alexander at least two years. After that, well, I think he would have to deal with rebellion in Greece, maybe he'd have to satisfy his mutinous army with a few years off. But the guy was planning to take Rome and Carthage...
 
Some propositions for the scenario:

1. Jews are either wiped out or are severely limited. This could lead to Christianity never evolving. What does anyone think about this? Christianity, culturally, was the result of a Judeo-Hellenic synthesis. Was it the result of too much or too little Hellenic interference in Jewish affairs? What would diminish the chances of Christianity arising? Leaving the Jews alone or limiting them severely? Extermination seems to solve the problem but that's not nice... Would the Seleucids ever have been able to carry out a full-blown holocaust once the program of Hellenization fails (and is not interrupted by the Romans)?

2. Buddhism enters the West earlier. It is known that the Indo-Greeks had achieved a Greco-Buddhist synthesis, and that a small number of philosophers even embraced some of its ideals, concurrent as they were of the Skepticism in vogue in the West (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism). An Eastern religions lecturer/fanatic even told me that Plotinus' teacher, Ammonius Saccas, was a Buddhist, but I have found no corroboration of this. If the Alexandrian Empire did not collapse and the East-West bridge was maintained for longer, do you think that Buddhism could have entered in the West, at least as a philosophy?

3. A strong Carthage. If Rome is defeated early in its infancy, Carthage could go on to establish stronger bases in the Mediterranean and in Iberia. Could it eventually become powerful enough to be a threat to an Alexandrian Empire, or at least its Western segment? Or would the power that crushed Rome be able and willing to go on with crushing Carthage?
 

Alcuin

Banned
Eventually, Alexander would have been thwarted. He would have spent the rest of his life defending his empire against enemies real and imagined, both within the empire and without. Perhaps he would have pushed his frontier in India as far south as the Ganges or even further, but sooner or later (and probably within his lifetime) he'd be beaten back to the Indus and beyond. In Arabia, no doubt he would take the Hejaz, Hadramaut, Yemen and Oman, leaving only the empty quarter unconquered. he may even cross the Red Sea to engage Aksum or whatever Ethiopian power is there.

His aborted attempts to press Westward might lead to the development of a Modus Vivendi between Carthage and Rome, perhaps avoiding the Punic Wars and allowing both to expand together, even resulting in both lasting longer than they did because of their ability to defend against Barbarians (How about, for example, Carthage becomes mainly a naval power, while Rome becomes mainly a land power, with each others' spheres negotiated and sacrosanct?)

Meanwhile, Alexander is going to be holding on to his own empire as he fights of rivals from the North (Scythians, Yuezhi etc.), from the South (Indians, East Africans, and perhaps Ethiopia and Meroe), from the East (More Indians, Tibet, more Yuezhi, Huns, Turks etc.) and from the West (Rome and Carthage). Perhaps his dynasty lasts longer if he survives, and there is an Iskandrid dynasty in the Persian Empire, but I can't see this leading to a world-spanning Macedonian Empire.
 
I'm also wondering about the possibilities of a Syracuse-based Greek Empire. Could Dionysius I and his progeny have successfully taken on Carthage and carried to war to Carthage's doom, and then take on Rome?
 
Top