WI: Alexander the Great lives 2x as long

[Circle of Willis]

Alexander III of Macedon famously went on a conquering spree, extending Hellenic power and culture as far south as the Nile's first cataract and as far eastward as modern Tajikistan, Pakistan & NW India, before dying a month short of his 33rd birthday while on the cusp of launching a campaign against the Arabs. Reportedly he came down with a severe fever, but there's been speculation that he may have been poisoned by a conspiracy among his generals for whatever reason (ranging from fearing he'd kill them to just not wanting to go on campaign again for the billionth time). Whatever the cause of his death, since his heir Alexander IV wasn't even born yet at the time, said many generals ended up chopping his empire to pieces between themselves. The fourth Alexander was alternately used as a pawn, abandoned and eventually assassinated at age ~14 by the various men who were supposed to be his regents & guardians.

None of the Diadochi or 'successor' kingdoms which followed could quite replicate his successes & glory, and each declined massively in their own ways before eventually being swallowed up by the rising power of Rome one after another - Ptolemaic Egypt being the last to fall. Thus did the end come for Hellenistic civilization in our timeline, eclipsed by and in many ways absorbed into the ascendant Roman world which would now come to dominate the Mediterranean basin without contest for many more centuries.

However. What if Alexander beat his illness (natural or otherwise) and lived another 33 years, dying instead sometime after his sixty-sixth birthday in 290 BC? Could he have left a much more durable Argead Empire, and what effects would such a legacy have on the course of history - certainly in relation to the neighboring Romans & Carthaginians to the west which the 'King of Asia' and his heirs will likely either coexist with or crush?

 

[ATP]

Alexander III of Macedon famously went on a conquering spree, extending Hellenic power and culture as far south as the Nile's first cataract and as far eastward as modern Tajikistan, Pakistan & NW India, before dying a month short of his 33rd birthday while on the cusp of launching a campaign against the Arabs. Reportedly he came down with a severe fever, but there's been speculation that he may have been poisoned by a conspiracy among his generals for whatever reason (ranging from fearing he'd kill them to just not wanting to go on campaign again for the billionth time). Whatever the cause of his death, since his heir Alexander IV wasn't even born yet at the time, said many generals ended up chopping his empire to pieces between themselves. The fourth Alexander was alternately used as a pawn, abandoned and eventually assassinated at age ~14 by the various men who were supposed to be his regents & guardians.

None of the Diadochi or 'successor' kingdoms which followed could quite replicate his successes & glory, and each declined massively in their own ways before eventually being swallowed up by the rising power of Rome one after another - Ptolemaic Egypt being the last to fall. Thus did the end come for Hellenistic civilization in our timeline, eclipsed by and in many ways absorbed into the ascendant Roman world which would now come to dominate the Mediterranean basin without contest for many more centuries.

However. What if Alexander beat his illness (natural or otherwise) and lived another 33 years, dying instead sometime after his sixty-sixth birthday in 290 BC? Could he have left a much more durable Argead Empire, and what effects would such a legacy have on the course of history - certainly in relation to the neighboring Romans & Carthaginians to the west which the 'King of Asia' and his heirs will likely either coexist with or crush?

Rome was not especially strong in his times,but Carthage was.So,he would conqer them,especially that there was long greek-Carthage war there,and Alexander supposed to fight for greece.
Problem is,he would continue to conqering things,so he would made much bigger empire.
And leave it to his son,who probably keep most of it.

What next? Rome would never become Empire,maybe even some Alexander burn and salt it,like romans did to Carthage in OTL.

All empires fall,so it would fall,too - about 100-200AD probably.

But,instead of roman-greek heritage,we would have greek-persian heritage,becouse Alexander really wonted asimilate persian culture.

Aside from that - notching really happen,except much bigger legend for next rulers.
Becouse now all next would-be-Alexanders would have much bigger ideal to accomplish.

 

[Skallagrim]

Alexander would have to be very lucky, since his life was one of constant risk. He was planning multiple more wars, and he was famous for leading from the front. (Repeatedly being literally "the first man across the walls", hacking into the enemy before his companions could even catch up to him.) That kind of behaviour typically leads o an early and violent death, as a simple matter of statistics. (Murphy's Law -- the real one, not the pop-cultural bastardisation -- being quite inescapable, as we all know.)

But suppose he beats the odds. There is some evidence that he could, since the arrow-wound he'd caught in the shoulder / upper chest had debilitated him already, to a degree. Riding long distances on horse-back was difficult for him, and he often rode a chariot instead, near the end. At least for some time, his more "active" approach was impossible to keep up. We may reasonably imagine this to be a facor that leads him to pivot -- as he becomes a bit older as well -- to a more reserved way of campaigning. That is: leading a bit more from the rear, possibly under the pretext of allowing his younger generals their fair share of the glory. (As well as listening to his men, who'd often urged him to stop being such a bat-shit crazy risk-taker.)

The crucial POD, though, would be to avoid Hephaistion's death. Alexander saw himself as a reborn Akhilles, and Hephaistion as his Patroklos. After his "other half" died, Alexander pretty much went down into a self-destructive spiral. (This is one reason to doubt the poisoning hypothesis, next to the fact that he died pretty slowly, with symptoms way more indicative of disease, brought on and rendered more deadly be an already much-weakened constitution.)



...So, let us take that premise as a given, and assume Alexander has fortune on his side. This means he proceeds to conquer the coast of all Arabia. This will be done with two fleets, supporting two armies moving along the coast. One going down the Gulf, the other down the Red Sea. This will be an expensive operation, but after it's done, Alexander has monopolised the Indian Ocean trade into Western Eurasia, and that sets him up to recoup his investments in under a decade. He'll be the wealthiest ruler in human history by the time he dies.

Before departing, he has already summoned Antipatros from Macedon, to serve as his regent during the planned next campaign. He has alo ordered massive ship-building to begin. Not only to build up more sizable and permanent (anti-piracy) fleets of 250 ships each in the Gulf and the Red Sea, but also to build 500(!) warships in the Eastern Mediterranean, for his planned war against Carthage.

By the time Alexander has circumnavigated Arabia, he'll end up in Alexandria-in-Egypt. He already had plans to massively expand that city, and to restore the canal of the Pharaos (thus making the trade between the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean vastly more efficient). I have little doubt that Alexandria, not Babylon, would ultimately become his imperial capital. Its position is too good to ignore. He'd divert Antipatros to Alexandria, and begin prepping his campaign angainst Carthage.

Possibly, there would first be a brief Greek interlude, to see to some matters in his ancentral land. (And also, to remind some uppity Athenians that he's their overlord, now and forever.)

Then, the great campaign in the West. Defeat Carthage, build a coastal road from Alexandria to the Gates of Herakles (the Strait of Gibraltar), grant all Syracuse to Megale Hellas and defeate the Samnians all in return for overlordship over Megale Hellas, make friends with Rome (then still just a local power) who are also at war with the Samnites. Ideally, implement a permanent "Italian settlement", giving the Soouth to the Greeks, the middle to the Romans, and the North to the Etruscans. Establish loose hegemony, and let them do their own thing, but make it clear that if any of them start waging war, they'll be destroyed. There, Rome has now been neutralised and will forever be just a small republic.

Finally, gain control over the rest of the Mediterranean coast, and force the Greek colonies into vassalage.

That was pretty much Alexander's plan. After this, we have indications that he planned to consolidate the Balkans by conquering everything up to the Danube; conquer the unruly bits of Northern Anatolia; push his Northern frontier to the Caucasus range; gain overlordship over the Crimea and the Greek colonies there...

Yeah. And that's pretty much it. Beyond that, he only had the ambition to conquer India after all, but I don't think that's happening. If he tries somehing like that, it's more likely that he'll die. I think that by the time he's done with all the above, Chandragupta Maurya will have taken control of most of India. The smartest thing for Alexander to do is simply to establish good trade relations. If we assume that Alexander is force to stop campaigning because his health really starts to decline, he can spend his later years overseeing the construction of roads and canals, and the expansion of his fleets. His many Alexandrias will grow and flourish, becoming the cosmopolitan centres of an inter-mingled Imperial culture.

Meanwhile, the Greek-Persian marriages he pretty much forced on his aristocratic officers will last, and produce children. In OTL, a lot of those marriages were abandoned after Alexander dies. Here, not so much. This will produce an ethnically and culturally syncretised "next generation" that will be the aristocratic elite of the Empire. Loyal to Alexander's vision, not to either Greece or Persia or any other nation. True sons of the Empire. Alexander had already started establishing ethnically mixed units of soldiers during his last years, and that would continue, too. The Alexandrias would be the garrisons of true Imperial legions: the military back-bone of the vast multi-national state.



How long would this last? Well, chances are, if Alexander lives this long, and can really implement his vision, he'll have put down a very solid foundation by the time he dies. At this point, his son will be an adult, ready to inherit. The biggest danger is that the sons and the grand-sons and great-grand-sons are quite often not as uniquely talented as the progenitor of their line. The aforementioned Chandragupta Maurya was, in many ways, a "successful Alexander". His Empire was very impressive, and his grand-son was even a formidable ruler in his own right, but that still didn't stop the ultimate decline. The Maurya Empire lasted less than a century and a half. And the last 50 years or so were years of marked decline.

That, I think, is the most realistic outcome for Alexander's vast realm, too. Naturally, I'm very interested in the idea of a world where his empire lasts many hundreds of years; and that can be imagined. It's worth considering. But it's not at all the most likely outcome.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

There, Rome has now been neutralised and will forever be just a small republic.

I profoundly doubt that. Rome was always fiercely independent and wouldn’t exactly be thrilled to be vassal to the worst thing under Jupiter’s dominion…a King!

As you say, Alexander’s Empire is fated to wobble and fall a few decades after his death. All Rome has to do is wait, and when things belly flop it’ll probably end up squashing the former Macedonian vassals in Italia as it did in our timeline. The legion structure already somewhat existed by the time of Alexander’s death, and the Res Publica never had too much trouble raising those.

Edit: Thereafter, if there is a “Rise of Rome” in this timeline, its version of the Punic Wars is the clash between an ailing Macedonia and an upstart Rome. One thought is that a Rome in this situation would likely have some cultural differences from the one we know due to absolutely fucking detesting their Macedonian/Greek overlords.

 

[ATP]

I profoundly doubt that. Rome was always fiercely independent and wouldn’t exactly be thrilled to be vassal to the worst thing under Jupiter’s dominion…a King!

As you say, Alexander’s Empire is fated to wobble and fall a few decades after his death. All Rome has to do is wait, and when things belly flop it’ll probably end up squashing the former Macedonian vassals in Italia as it did in our timeline. The legion structure already somewhat existed by the time of Alexander’s death, and the Res Publica never had too much trouble raising those.

Edit: Thereafter, if there is a “Rise of Rome” in this timeline, its version of the Punic Wars is the clash between an ailing Macedonia and an upstart Rome. One thought is that a Rome in this situation would likely have some cultural differences from the one we know due to absolutely fucking detesting their Macedonian/Greek overlords.

Possible,but since first dangerous german invasion was about 100BC,when Alexander Empire would still exist,Rome could fall here.
That is why i think,that we would have german successor states of Alexander Empire,not Rome.

 

[Skallagrim]

I profoundly doubt that. Rome was always fiercely independent and wouldn’t exactly be thrilled to be vassal to the worst thing under Jupiter’s dominion…a King!

As you say, Alexander’s Empire is fated to wobble and fall a few decades after his death. All Rome has to do is wait, and when things belly flop it’ll probably end up squashing the former Macedonian vassals in Italia as it did in our timeline. The legion structure already somewhat existed by the time of Alexander’s death, and the Res Publica never had too much trouble raising those.

Edit: Thereafter, if there is a “Rise of Rome” in this timeline, its version of the Punic Wars is the clash between an ailing Macedonia and an upstart Rome. One thought is that a Rome in this situation would likely have some cultural differences from the one we know due to absolutely fucking detesting their Macedonian/Greek overlords.

At the time of Alexander, Rome is basically still a city-state with a decent but very local back-yard. So when Alexander comes knocking, their chances are zip. Since they're at war with the Samnites (who, years earlier, killed Alexander's maternal uncle), they can easily make common cause with him. If they're not retarded, they do so. If they're too proud, they get crushed, and the survivors get forcibly scattered across the Empire. Alexander wasn't subtle about such things.

Assuming the Romans know which way the wind is blowing, they get a pretty nifty (for their position at the time!) territorial settlement out of it. The borders between Rome and Megale Hellas will run just North of Capua (or rather: Kapoué) and then East to the (OTL) Gulf of Manfredonia, where (pretty much on the spot of OTL Manfredonia), Sipious (in OTL also know as Sipontum to the Romans) was the Northernmost Greek colony in Italy.

To their North, the Romans would have to suffer the Etruscans and (futher East) the Umbrian peoples. Presumably, Central Italy would be Rome's to do with as it saw fit, meaning most of the Sabines still get absorbed-- but that's about it. Rome would, in short, be confined to a fairly small region. As far as I'm aware, it still relied on the manipular system for its military (the legion system being a considerably later invention), and there would be few if any opportunities to force any expansion.

To the North, Etruscans and Umbrians, and beyond that, Italo-Celts. To the South, Megale Hellas. To the West, Sardinia and Corsica no doubt firmly held by Alexander's Imperial forces, as key staging locations for naval operations in the Western Med. Further afield, the North African, an Iberian coasts likewise held by the Empire, and the Balearics firmly held, similar to the other islands. Massalia and surroundings would also be vassalised.

Under such conditions (presumably lasting until c. 180 BC, give or take a few decades), it is not particularly likely that Rome would come out on top. They'd have been robbed of a century and a half of gradual expansion that they enjoyed in OTL. A fracturing of the great empire could go in many directions, and some could easily see Rome exploit the chaos to make some gains in Italy. But I think the "Roman Empire"-train has been well and truly derailed, at that point.

Possible,but since first dangerous german invasion was about 100BC,when Alexander Empire would still exist,Rome could fall here.
That is why i think,that we would have german successor states of Alexander Empire,not Rome.

What German invasion? Germanic peoples had just about pushed the Celtic peoples to the Rhine, by 100 BC. And that's pretty much where that German migration stopped. It never amounted to anything further than some raiding by mixed Germano-Celtic warbands in the next few centuries, such as under Ariovistus.

The idea of German people so much as reaching Italy in 100 BC is pretty far out. I think you're confusing them with Celts. As the Celts were pushed towards (and later across) the Rhine in the North, they in turn expanded/migrated in the South, with large hosts pushing into Northern Italy and Iberia (where earlier groups of Celts had already settled in large numbers in the preceding centuries).

I don't think Alexander's Empire would survive (in any meaningful form) to 100 BC. It would already be in decay a century earlier, most probably. And at that point, the Celtic migrations would become a serious issue. I could see Massalia falling to the Celts, and (without Rome's OTL presence), all of Iberia and much of Italy becoming inundated with migrating Celts.

Rome might very well have to fight for its life against another Brennus.

 

[Circle of Willis]

Re: Rome, might a collapse of the Argead Empire inadvertently make it easier for them to snap up the western Mediterranean Basin? If Alexander topples the Carthaginians (certainly the seemingly stronger and more established power in that part of the world around 300 BC, and the one most people from his lifetime would've bet on in any fight with Rome) that removes Rome's biggest and most famous stumbling block between the Battle of the Allia and the crisis of the Republic, IIRC. The Etruscans were already on the decline - they even allied with the Samnites in a desperate attempt to arrest the growth of Roman power near the end of the century, and apparently all they got for it was yet another shattering defeat - and any fractious satraps or disorganized tribes which had since been subordinated to Argead power beforehand and left to do their own thing when/if the empire goes under could probably be defeated in detail by the Romans.

All that said, if any post-Argead power in the region can contain Rome, I'd look to Magna Graecia. The Tarentines seemed to be constantly reliant on outside powers to bail them out (and not just against the Romans, but also neighboring non-Roman Italic tribes like the Bruttians) so maybe not those guys, but Syracuse seemed pretty strong in this timeframe and had colorful leadership, like the mercenary prince Agathocles & Hiero II, the quietly competent relative of Archimedes. Maybe they'd have a shot at turning Sicily into the core of a larger realm in the southern Mediterranean that incorporates what used to be Carthage, coming to territorially resemble the much later Siculo-Norman empire at its height (but probably bigger, Agathocles' kin ended up controlling Cyrene IRL after all, albeit as a Ptolemaic vassal, and I could see the case for expansion into Numidia & Corsica/Sardinia too).

The Gauls I think would be the best positioned to become the 'great barbaric conqueror' in the west if the Argeads implode a century or two down the line. Butterflies will probably mean Vercingetorix isn't born ITL, but his Arverni tribe (noted to actually be pretty civilized themselves, reputedly living in great towns supported by grand farms and fielding huge armies equipped by expert metal-workers, not that this helped when confronted by post-Punic Wars Rome) got to be pretty strong before being cut down to size by the Romans around 120 BC with that absolutely ridiculous K : D ratio from the linked battle (even assuming a Roman exaggeration of 10x in both directions, that's pretty funny, NGL), and obviously bounced back to become the biggest thorn in Caesar's side during the Gallic Wars.

We also know that the Gauls had been a terror to both the Greeks & Romans historically, having rampaged as far as Galatia IRL (presumably a still-strong Argead Empire only a generation or two removed from Alexander's death can prevent that ITL). Assuming a lifespan of about 150 years for the Argeads to mirror the Maurya as suggested, maybe then by ~50 BC the Arverni can - instead of leading the ultimately doomed Gallic resistance against Rome - go on a conquering spree against its decaying western remnants & successors instead. They could reach out to the likes of the Celtiberians in Spain (still around as late as Sertorius' war historically) and eventually - after conquering and learning from any Greek colonies/satrapies in their way (or even the Romans if the latter are unlucky enough) - turn around to crush any Gauls holding out against them up north, their distant Brittonic cousins, maybe even some Germans. How's a Gallic Empire that's actually Gallic sound?

 

[Skallagrim]

Re: Rome, might a collapse of the Argead Empire inadvertently make it easier for them to snap up the western Mediterranean Basin? If Alexander topples the Carthaginians (certainly the seemingly stronger and more established power in that part of the world around 300 BC, and the one most people from his lifetime would've bet on in any fight with Rome) that removes Rome's biggest and most famous stumbling block between the Battle of the Allia and the crisis of the Republic, IIRC. The Etruscans were already on the decline - they even allied with the Samnites in a desperate attempt to arrest the growth of Roman power near the end of the century, and apparently all they got for it was yet another shattering defeat - and any fractious satraps or disorganized tribes which had since been subordinated to Argead power beforehand and left to do their own thing when/if the empire goes under could probably be defeated in detail by the Romans.

All that said, if any post-Argead power in the region can contain Rome, I'd look to Magna Graecia. The Tarentines seemed to be constantly reliant on outside powers to bail them out (and not just against the Romans, but also neighboring non-Roman Italic tribes like the Bruttians) so maybe not those guys, but Syracuse seemed pretty strong in this timeframe and had colorful leadership, like the mercenary prince Agathocles & Hiero II, the quietly competent relative of Archimedes. Maybe they'd have a shot at turning Sicily into the core of a larger realm in the southern Mediterranean that incorporates what used to be Carthage, coming to territorially resemble the much later Siculo-Norman empire at its height (but probably bigger, Agathocles' kin ended up controlling Cyrene IRL after all, albeit as a Ptolemaic vassal, and I could see the case for expansion into Numidia & Corsica/Sardinia too).

The Gauls I think would be the best positioned to become the 'great barbaric conqueror' in the west if the Argeads implode a century or two down the line. Butterflies will probably mean Vercingetorix isn't born ITL, but his Arverni tribe (noted to actually be pretty civilized themselves, reputedly living in great towns supported by grand farms and fielding huge armies equipped by expert metal-workers, not that this helped when confronted by post-Punic Wars Rome) got to be pretty strong before being cut down to size by the Romans around 120 BC with that absolutely ridiculous K : D ratio from the linked battle (even assuming a Roman exaggeration of 10x in both directions, that's pretty funny, NGL), and obviously bounced back to become the biggest thorn in Caesar's side during the Gallic Wars.

We also know that the Gauls had been a terror to both the Greeks & Romans historically, having rampaged as far as Galatia IRL (presumably a still-strong Argead Empire only a generation or two removed from Alexander's death can prevent that ITL). Assuming a lifespan of about 150 years for the Argeads to mirror the Maurya as suggested, maybe then by ~50 BC the Arverni can - instead of leading the ultimately doomed Gallic resistance against Rome - go on a conquering spree against its decaying western remnants & successors instead. They could reach out to the likes of the Celtiberians in Spain (still around as late as Sertorius' war historically) and eventually - after conquering and learning from any Greek colonies/satrapies in their way (or even the Romans if the latter are unlucky enough) - turn around to crush any Gauls holding out against them up north, their distant Brittonic cousins, maybe even some Germans. How's a Gallic Empire that's actually Gallic sound?

Overall a very solid analysis, although I'm a bit puzzled as to how it leads to an easier time for Rome. I might be missing something, but an emerging Celtic power in the North(-West) and an "Empire of Syracuse" to the South(-West) doesn't strike me as a good time for anyone caught in between.

Naturally, things could shift in various ways. I rather wonder where the Western Mediterranean islands end up. As I mentioned, they're unavoidably obvious as staging points for naval operations, so they'll have relevance. At the same time, it's not as if defeating Carthage implies "replacing it with nothing". Even if Carthage is forever destroyed, another city like Hippo would just become the leading polis in the region. Would this be a limit to the ambitions of Syracuse?

It's possible that we have a Celtic power in the North-Western Med, covering Gaul, the Western Alps, Iberia and Northern Italy. Then there is Megale Hellas, and possily a resurgent (non-Carthaginian) Punic power. It's also possible that the Punic identity has been stamped out, and both Megale Hellas and North-West Africa are governed from Syracuse. The latter would vastly increase their chances against the Celts and any other rivals.

Either way, I see these "Northern" and "Southern" powers competing over the Balearics, Corsica and Sardinia, and over the Gates of Herakles.

At the same time, Central Italy would be between them as well. Kind of between hammer and anvil, really. As far as the Etruscans and the Umbrians are concerned: if Rome was to be given free reign, they'd definitely crush them. However, Alexander typically gave the greatest leeway to his most loyal supporters. I don't think Rome would want to become a satrapy, and that they'd instead just become "friends" of Alexander, nominally recognising him as hegemon of the known world. This means that he'd give them and all their neighbours (who presumably take the same deal) the basic "don't make trouble" arrangement. As long as they send some levies when he asks for them, they can do their own thing-- but there must be no warfare between them. Any who attacks his neighbours will be crushed.

For this reason, I think that until the Empire starts to crumble, Rome won't be able to conquer much of anything. Once things go tits-up, sure, they might well be able to gobble up Etruria and Umbria. But even then, they won't be abl to just march all over the larger rivals to the North and South. Though they might thrive by serving as a neutral buffer between the two larger factions-- the very existance of Rome preventing an additional front in the war between those two. (Or three, if the Punic realm is independent.)

 

[Circle of Willis]

Overall a very solid analysis, although I'm a bit puzzled as to how it leads to an easier time for Rome. I might be missing something, but an emerging Celtic power in the North(-West) and an "Empire of Syracuse" to the South(-West) doesn't strike me as a good time for anyone caught in between.

Naturally, things could shift in various ways. I rather wonder where the Western Mediterranean islands end up. As I mentioned, they're unavoidably obvious as staging points for naval operations, so they'll have relevance. At the same time, it's not as if defeating Carthage implies "replacing it with nothing". Even if Carthage is forever destroyed, another city like Hippo would just become the leading polis in the region. Would this be a limit to the ambitions of Syracuse?

It's possible that we have a Celtic power in the North-Western Med, covering Gaul, the Western Alps, Iberia and Northern Italy. Then there is Megale Hellas, and possily a resurgent (non-Carthaginian) Punic power. It's also possible that the Punic identity has been stamped out, and both Megale Hellas and North-West Africa are governed from Syracuse. The latter would vastly increase their chances against the Celts and any other rivals.

Either way, I see these "Northern" and "Southern" powers competing over the Balearics, Corsica and Sardinia, and over the Gates of Herakles.

At the same time, Central Italy would be between them as well. Kind of between hammer and anvil, really. As far as the Etruscans and the Umbrians are concerned: if Rome was to be given free reign, they'd definitely crush them. However, Alexander typically gave the greatest leeway to his most loyal supporters. I don't think Rome would want to become a satrapy, and that they'd instead just become "friends" of Alexander, nominally recognising him as hegemon of the known world. This means that he'd give them and all their neighbours (who presumably take the same deal) the basic "don't make trouble" arrangement. As long as they send some levies when he asks for them, they can do their own thing-- but there must be no warfare between them. Any who attacks his neighbours will be crushed.

For this reason, I think that until the Empire starts to crumble, Rome won't be able to conquer much of anything. Once things go tits-up, sure, they might well be able to gobble up Etruria and Umbria. But even then, they won't be abl to just march all over the larger rivals to the North and South. Though they might thrive by serving as a neutral buffer between the two larger factions-- the very existance of Rome preventing an additional front in the war between those two. (Or three, if the Punic realm is independent.)

My thinking was that with their big RL enemies like Carthage taken off the board, Rome would probably be surrounded by fairly weak & easy-to-deal-with polities like the Etruscans or Argead satrapies that happen to have consolidated bits of territories which would've been held by stronger adversaries like the Carthaginians or Hellenistic kingdoms IRL - of Magna Graecia's cities for example, few if any seem like they could pose a threat to Roman ambitions the way Syracuse can, IIRC by the time of Alexander's historical death Capua and Neapolis were already Roman vassals (albeit the former wasn't very enthusiastic about it) and Tarentum crumpled like wet tissue right after Pyrrhus left Italy. But yes, they would be operating from a weaker starting position and the actually worthy opponents they'd have, like Syracuse and the Gauls, would be nothing to sneeze at.

While I guess it's possible that they could win multiple Isère-level victories to overcome the Gauls (stranger things have happened in history), it's indeed likelier that they'd get buried or turned into a football between these alternate hegemons. In particular I can't see a strong Gaul and a strong Rome coexisting, one's going to have to beat the other down. Not to mention that that's probably the more interesting outcome anyway, since anyone who's cracked open a book on classical history can already tell what a Roman-dominated Mediterranean Basin looks like. One divided between a Gallic juggernaut in the north and a Greco-Punic one in the south - not so much.

In addition to Western Europe, what do you speculate the eastern half (or perhaps two-thirds, rather) of the Argead Empire will look like in an 'eventual collapse' scenario? Some (admittedly rather scattered, but there is more ground to cover here than in the West) late-night thoughts on my part...

• If an attempt is made by the Greek city-states to regain their independence, like the Chremonidean league did against Antigonus II, it feels like it'd turn out to be even more of a joke than that turned out to be historically, and Macedon + Thrace + Epirus looks like it'd be a natural stronghold for one of the post-Argead warlords just as it turned out to be IRL.
• Mesopotamia/Armenia/Persia also look like good places for strong warlords to crop up and tear into each other, as Seleucus & the eastern satraps who backed Eumenes amply demonstrated IOTL. India and the furthest-most east too, longer-lived Greco-Bactrians/Indo-Greeks would be pretty cool.
• Maybe the combined domains of Antigonus I (Syria/Judea/Asia Minor/part of Greece) and Ptolemy I (Egypt, of course) could serve as the base for an Argead rump state, assuming the dynasty doesn't just get wiped out without an heir later than it was historically like the Mauryas did? I'm imagining some descendant of Alexander IV holing up in Alexandria-in-Egypt, greatest of those cities established by & bearing the name of his illustrious forefather, like a Hellenistic equivalent/spiritual predecessor to Liu Bei, heh.
• I wonder if the Jews would still gain both motive and opportunity to reassert their independence as the Maccabees did historically in the ruins of this empire with a better-established cosmopolitan Greco-Asiatic culture (what might we call it BTW? Heterogenēs?), as well.

 

[Buba]

build a coastal road from Alexandria to the Gates of Herakles (the Strait of Gibraltar), grant all Syracuse to Megale Hellas and defeate the Samnians all in return for overlordship over Megale Hellas, make friends with Rome

Alexander was into road building? Also - why build a road if you can get from A to B by ship - several times faster and 20-40 times cheaper WITHOUT the cost of building a road?
Why would he make friends with the Roman cunts?

If they're not retarded, they do so. If they're too proud, they get crushed, and the survivors get forcibly scattered across the Empire.

They are retarded and get sold into slavery.

 

[ATP]

At the time of Alexander, Rome is basically still a city-state with a decent but very local back-yard. So when Alexander comes knocking, their chances are zip. Since they're at war with the Samnites (who, years earlier, killed Alexander's maternal uncle), they can easily make common cause with him. If they're not retarded, they do so. If they're too proud, they get crushed, and the survivors get forcibly scattered across the Empire. Alexander wasn't subtle about such things.

Assuming the Romans know which way the wind is blowing, they get a pretty nifty (for their position at the time!) territorial settlement out of it. The borders between Rome and Megale Hellas will run just North of Capua (or rather: Kapoué) and then East to the (OTL) Gulf of Manfredonia, where (pretty much on the spot of OTL Manfredonia), Sipious (in OTL also know as Sipontum to the Romans) was the Northernmost Greek colony in Italy.

To their North, the Romans would have to suffer the Etruscans and (futher East) the Umbrian peoples. Presumably, Central Italy would be Rome's to do with as it saw fit, meaning most of the Sabines still get absorbed-- but that's about it. Rome would, in short, be confined to a fairly small region. As far as I'm aware, it still relied on the manipular system for its military (the legion system being a considerably later invention), and there would be few if any opportunities to force any expansion.

To the North, Etruscans and Umbrians, and beyond that, Italo-Celts. To the South, Megale Hellas. To the West, Sardinia and Corsica no doubt firmly held by Alexander's Imperial forces, as key staging locations for naval operations in the Western Med. Further afield, the North African, an Iberian coasts likewise held by the Empire, and the Balearics firmly held, similar to the other islands. Massalia and surroundings would also be vassalised.

Under such conditions (presumably lasting until c. 180 BC, give or take a few decades), it is not particularly likely that Rome would come out on top. They'd have been robbed of a century and a half of gradual expansion that they enjoyed in OTL. A fracturing of the great empire could go in many directions, and some could easily see Rome exploit the chaos to make some gains in Italy. But I think the "Roman Empire"-train has been well and truly derailed, at that point.





What German invasion? Germanic peoples had just about pushed the Celtic peoples to the Rhine, by 100 BC. And that's pretty much where that German migration stopped. It never amounted to anything further than some raiding by mixed Germano-Celtic warbands in the next few centuries, such as under Ariovistus.

The idea of German people so much as reaching Italy in 100 BC is pretty far out. I think you're confusing them with Celts. As the Celts were pushed towards (and later across) the Rhine in the North, they in turn expanded/migrated in the South, with large hosts pushing into Northern Italy and Iberia (where earlier groups of Celts had already settled in large numbers in the preceding centuries).

I don't think Alexander's Empire would survive (in any meaningful form) to 100 BC. It would already be in decay a century earlier, most probably. And at that point, the Celtic migrations would become a serious issue. I could see Massalia falling to the Celts, and (without Rome's OTL presence), all of Iberia and much of Italy becoming inundated with migrating Celts.

Rome might very well have to fight for its life against another Brennus.

Agree about Rome.
Germans - teutons tribes in Cimbri war.I knew,that most of them were in fact,celts,but at least some were german tribes.
Here:Cimbrian War - Wikipedia

I think,that against much smaller Rome,they win easily.
If they choose to invade them,not crumbling Alexander Empire.

 

[Skallagrim]

My thinking was that with their big RL enemies like Carthage taken off the board, Rome would probably be surrounded by fairly weak & easy-to-deal-with polities like the Etruscans or Argead satrapies that happen to have consolidated bits of territories which would've been held by stronger adversaries like the Carthaginians or Hellenistic kingdoms IRL - of Magna Graecia's cities for example, few if any seem like they could pose a threat to Roman ambitions the way Syracuse can, IIRC by the time of Alexander's historical death Capua and Neapolis were already Roman vassals (albeit the former wasn't very enthusiastic about it) and Tarentum crumpled like wet tissue right after Pyrrhus left Italy. But yes, they would be operating from a weaker starting position and the actually worthy opponents they'd have, like Syracuse and the Gauls, would be nothing to sneeze at.

After many decades of well-organised imperialism, and the great bounties of trade, I'm pretty sure the, ah, "Western satrapies" of the Empire would be fairly well-off and well-organised. I don't think the OTL weakness of Megale Hellas can be assumed to persist, since Alexander would install a capable man in Syracuse (hell, maybe he'd even bring Agathokles himself into the fold) and encourage that man to create a well-ordered realm.

While I guess it's possible that they could win multiple Isère-level victories to overcome the Gauls (stranger things have happened in history), it's indeed likelier that they'd get buried or turned into a football between these alternate hegemons. In particular I can't see a strong Gaul and a strong Rome coexisting, one's going to have to beat the other down. Not to mention that that's probably the more interesting outcome anyway, since anyone who's cracked open a book on classical history can already tell what a Roman-dominated Mediterranean Basin looks like. One divided between a Gallic juggernaut in the north and a Greco-Punic one in the south - not so much.

Agreed!

Alexander was into road building? Also - why build a road if you can get from A to B by ship - several times faster and 20-40 times cheaper WITHOUT the cost of building a road?

Alexander was very much into infrastructural projects. Cities, roads, canals, irrigation works, harbours... you name it. He knew an empire needed these things.

As to "why roads": sailing ships depend on the wind. Which was either seasonal or unpredictable. Sure, you could have the men use the oars, but in military ventures, "the men" were also the guys who had to be battle-ready when they arrived at their destination-- and working the oars was notably more man-breaking than marching for miles and miles. Hence: roads. To ensure that a sizable army could move anythere, on relatively short notice, regardless of the season or the wind's direction.

Why would he make friends with the Roman cunts?

I don't know what you have against the Romans. In any case, Alexander consistently liked warrior-peoples. He never minded if they fought him, so long as they would kneel after he won. Then he'd call them worthy foes, and induct them into his army with promises of loot. (Which he consistently made good on, too.)

The Romans would probably be to his liking, in their mentality.

They are retarded and get sold into slavery.

I'm not sure of that. In this period, they were still the junior partner to Carthage, and were generally unable to throw any real weight around when it came to fighting the big boys. I think that when they outlasted Pyrrhos, that "made" them, as it were. Then, they'd held off a real foe, and sent him back across the waters. From there on, they grew (in their self-perception and in actual fact) into the "never-kneeling Romans, proud and unbroken".

But that hadn't happened yet.

Germans - teutons tribes in Cimbri war.I knew,that most of them were in fact,celts,but at least some were german tribes.
Here:Cimbrian War - Wikipedia

I think,that against much smaller Rome,they win easily.
If they choose to invade them,not crumbling Alexander Empire.

To be sure, these were Celts, who allied with some (very much 'junior partner') Teutons. The latter never even made it into Italy, being crushed -- not just beaten, but annihilated -- by the Romans in Gaul. To be fair though, the Romans were led by Marius, who was an ass-kicker of staggering proportions.

This all happened c. 50 years after I imagine Alexander's empire falling apart, so the Cimbrian Celts would have ample opprtunities to exploit the mess. I think they'd drive for Greece (much more loot, and other Celtic invasions had done the same). If they use German auxiliaries, these will certainly be "small fries" again. Just a bunch of country bumpkins that the Celts use as auxiliaries.

A hundred years later, the Germanic tribes would really start their ascent, but at this time, the Celts were far more prominent.

In addition to Western Europe, what do you speculate the eastern half (or perhaps two-thirds, rather) of the Argead Empire will look like in an 'eventual collapse' scenario? Some (admittedly rather scattered, but there is more ground to cover here than in the West) late-night thoughts on my part...

• If an attempt is made by the Greek city-states to regain their independence, like the Chremonidean league did against Antigonus II, it feels like it'd turn out to be even more of a joke than that turned out to be historically, and Macedon + Thrace + Epirus looks like it'd be a natural stronghold for one of the post-Argead warlords just as it turned out to be IRL.
• Mesopotamia/Armenia/Persia also look like good places for strong warlords to crop up and tear into each other, as Seleucus & the eastern satraps who backed Eumenes amply demonstrated IOTL. India and the furthest-most east too, longer-lived Greco-Bactrians/Indo-Greeks would be pretty cool.
• Maybe the combined domains of Antigonus I (Syria/Judea/Asia Minor/part of Greece) and Ptolemy I (Egypt, of course) could serve as the base for an Argead rump state, assuming the dynasty doesn't just get wiped out without an heir later than it was historically like the Mauryas did? I'm imagining some descendant of Alexander IV holing up in Alexandria-in-Egypt, greatest of those cities established by & bearing the name of his illustrious forefather, like a Hellenistic equivalent/spiritual predecessor to Liu Bei, heh.
• I wonder if the Jews would still gain both motive and opportunity to reassert their independence as the Maccabees did historically in the ruins of this empire with a better-established cosmopolitan Greco-Asiatic culture (what might we call it BTW? Heterogenēs?), as well.

1. As far as Greece is concerned, "polis culture" was dead. Look at the Hellenistic kingdoms, and then imagine 180 more years of hegemonic rule. I think the most likely outcome is a largely Hellenised state covering everything South of the Danube/Drava, and presumably encompassing a sizable bit of Anatolia as well. So, basically, the OTl core of the Byzantine state, as a latter-day Hellenistic successor state. The "Greekest" of the successor realms, probably.

2. Greater Armenia would be fun, possibly bordering on "Greater Greece" directly.

3. A "legitimist" Argead rump state centred on Alexandria seems likely. I'm not sure it'll live very long. Cf. the Seleukid rump state in Syria from OTL. Not a success story. But at the start, this state would presumably stretch from Cyrenaica to Syria.

4. The legitimist rump state could easily collapse, or be reduced to an Egyptian core (where it would sadly resembly the Ptolemaic realm in its lesser days), while Syracuse makes a play for Cyrenaica, "Greater Greece" grabs up (surely-very-Hellenised-by-now) Syria, and the Jews re-assert their independence by virtue of being just outside everybody's effective reach.

5. Mesopotamia would presumably be absorbed by a distinctly Persian successor state, since the low plain is very hard to defend from attacks from the East.

6. A "Helleno-Buddhist" state on the Eastern fringes would be awesome, and there is OTL precedent for that sort of thing.

7. A "Hellenistic Arabia" would also be a thing, and how that plays out is anybody's guess.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

One thing I reckon an Alexander with hegemony over Rome would do, is be at great pains to not appear "Kingly." He showed a curious consideration for the cultures he subjugated and Rome would be no different. He'd probably don a toga when within the City walls, and sit quietly in the back of the Senate House, much amused and intrigued to watch the Res Publica in action.

Who knows, he might even adopt some local title to further ingratiate himself to the locals. Perhaps...Princeps?

 

[Buba]

I see that Roman fanboism is strong in this thread

Alexandre's admiration for warlike opponents is well illustrated by his treatment of Tyr or Thebes.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

I see that Roman fanboism is strong in this thread

It ain’t fanboism to acknowledge the glory of the Eternal City is forever.

That’s just the facts.

 

[Skallagrim]

One thing I reckon an Alexander with hegemony over Rome would do, is be at great pains to not appear "Kingly." He showed a curious consideration for the cultures he subjugated and Rome would be no different. He'd probably don a toga when within the City walls, and sit quietly in the back of the Senate House, much amused and intrigued to watch the Res Publica in action.

Who knows, he might even adopt some local title to further ingratiate himself to the locals. Perhaps...Princeps?

Realistically, Alexander would leave the Romans to be sovereign in practice, so long as thy essentially pay lip service to his status as hegemon of the Oikoumene ("inhabited world"). I don't think he'd take a Roman title, nor would it be offered. But if he visits them in person, they'd probably get along pretty well.

After all, even after having conquered a world-empire, he regularly made friends with (essentially) petty kings of warrior tribes on the frontier, just because he liked them. We shouldn't forget that his own father started out as the petty king of a warrior tribe on the frontier...

It might be interesting to see what Alexander would make of the Res Publica, though. In many ways, the Roman approach would be more sensible to a Macedonian, compared to the Greek city-states (at least in Alexander's day). Of course, on the other hand, Alexander would have little use for checks and balances, so it's not like he'd be very interested in emulating the republic.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

It might be interesting to see what Alexander would make of the Res Publica, though. In many ways, the Roman approach would be more sensible to a Macedonian, compared to the Greek city-states (at least in Alexander's day). Of course, on the other hand, Alexander would have little use for checks and balances, so it's not like he'd be very interested in emulating the republic.

The Res Publica in of itself is quite an interesting experiment in government for the time. But more than that, as an Argaed, I think Alexander would be fascinated with how all the political intrigue and arguments doesn’t devolve into constant assassinations. And the “first among equals” attitude of the Roman Patrician class would strike a cord with him.

I could imagine a Consular Legion being contributed to Alexander’s Army and serving quite famously through some of his campaigns.

Edit: The presiding Consul, as leader of five thousand men, would probably speak to Alexander on a regular basis. If the Romans do half as well under Macedonian orders as they would in our timeline, this man may be drawn further in to Alexander’s circle of trust and strike up a profound friendship. Then, many years down the line, as Alexander lies dying, this stubborn patrician weeps alongside the future diadochi, muttering the words ”Rex meus.”

 

[PsihoKekec]

You all forgot the most important consequence. More than two thousand years later the Unbiased History series focuses on Alexander's dynasty and empire, instead of Rome.

 

[Skallagrim]

The Res Publica in of itself is quite an interesting experiment in government for the time. But more than that, as an Argaed, I think Alexander would be fascinated with how all the political intrigue and arguments doesn’t devolve into constant assassinations. And the “first among equals” attitude of the Roman Patrician class would strike a cord with him.

I could imagine a Consular Legion being contributed to Alexander’s Army and serving quite famously through some of his campaigns.

Edit: The presiding Consul, as leader of five thousand men, would probably speak to Alexander on a regular basis. If the Romans do half as well under Macedonian orders as they would in our timeline, this man may be drawn further in to Alexander’s circle of trust and strike up a profound friendship. Then, many years down the line, as Alexander lies dying, this stubborn patrician weeps alongside the future diadochi, muttering the words ”Rex meus.”

Potential avenues one might take, alternate history-wise:

1) Alexander, still seeking to impose a definitive settlement upon the Greek city-states, takes some notes about the Res Publica (well, realistically, Hephaistion takes notes; he was the more intellectual one, keeping up a lengthy correspondence with Aristotle). He then has some "practical constitution for a polis" drawn up, and introduces this as the norm in Greece. It works very well, especially since I think he'd like the Comitia Centuriata very much, and would introduce an arrangement that gives a lot of politicl influence to veterans of his campaigns, via such a body. This would give political dominance to those who were inclined to join him anyway. To be clear, I don't think he'd copy Rome outright, but there are elements he could use to make the Greek city-states into... something other than nests of anti-Argead conspiring.

2) If we really want to go overboard, he could introduce such a system in his Alexandrias, too. Since these would be built around military garissons, it might make sense to give the soldiers a say in how their city is run.

3) The Comitia Tributa, meanwhile, mirrors older Greek institutions, which had largely been eclipsed by Alexander's time. But this notion of allowing people to vote "by tribe" might be very useful for a multi-ethnic empire. Obviously, he wouldn't actually give up his own power (or that of his satrap-governors), but having "tribal assemblies" in each region who can then send permanent representatives to speak for them (and petition on their behalf) to the Satrap might be a useful thing.

4) Meanwhile, he could install a Council of Elders in each Satrapy, to aid the Satrap in legislative matters. This would be a more autocratic variant on the Senate, and it would help keep overly ambitious Satraps in check. Also, this wouldn't be so different from Alexander's own Companions, who always spoke freely to him about all his plans and ideas. (Note that at the time, the Lex Ovinia hadn't been introduced yet, and Consuls still appointed Senators from among their supporters; this is what Alexander would see, and would thus take inspiration from.)

5) The idea of a census of the citizenry would appeal to him as well. Greek cities kept rolls, too, but the Romans were more thorough and organised. This kind of civic administration could go a long way to making sure nobody dodged the military levies, which was the main thing, to Alexander. (He cared little about squeezing the populace with taxes; he knew that he only needed trade duties to effectively finance his entire empire.)



(Anyway, all of this rather indicates why Rome became so successful in OTL. It wasn't some accident. Their institutions really were quite good. Better than what the city-state Greeks had come up with.)



Regarding the idea of a Roman cohort joining Alexander: I have some doubts, as -- unlike Greeks -- the were generally unwilling to fight under foreign command. However, this might be "married" to a more favourable "Italian settlement" for Rome. What I mean is: they promise Roman soldiers who will join Alexander on his campaigns, and Alexander in return helps them out on the spot, and they go off conquering the Etruscans and Umbrians. Rome is thus a bit bigger than what I initially proposed, bording directly on Cisalpine Gaul, and subsequently, a Roman force of fighting men goes off with Alexander to conquer more land. (In Iberia, first, I would imagine.)

Obviously, if a Roman force joins Alexander, there is only one man who can lead them. Because it would be hilarious that the exact guy that Livius singles out as "he could have beaten Alexander!" would instead join Alexander. (It would make sense, too, because Alexander would join forces with Rome in beating the Samnites, which is what Lucius Papirius Cursor was famous for doing in OTL...)

Anyway, you can easily imagine ATL histories mentioning it:

"And some it came about that the pact of Alexander and the Romans, forged in the war against the hated Samnites, was further strengthened in their joint campaign to subsue the degenerate Etrurians. For his aid in securing the burders of their homeland, the people of Rome furnished a cohort of fierce warriors, who joined Alexander in his further campaigns, and won great glory for their dedication. These men were led by that same general who had commanded them when battling the Samnites, and who had worked with Alexander to crush the armies of these foes. This general was Loukeios Papeirios, named 'Koursor' by his people, which means 'fleet-footed' in their tongue. And because this was a name also given to Akhilles in the ancient days of Ilion, Alexander knew that it was fate that had caused their paths to cross."

 

[Sergeant Foley]

Alexander III of Macedon famously went on a conquering spree, extending Hellenic power and culture as far south as the Nile's first cataract and as far eastward as modern Tajikistan, Pakistan & NW India, before dying a month short of his 33rd birthday while on the cusp of launching a campaign against the Arabs. Reportedly he came down with a severe fever, but there's been speculation that he may have been poisoned by a conspiracy among his generals for whatever reason (ranging from fearing he'd kill them to just not wanting to go on campaign again for the billionth time). Whatever the cause of his death, since his heir Alexander IV wasn't even born yet at the time, said many generals ended up chopping his empire to pieces between themselves. The fourth Alexander was alternately used as a pawn, abandoned and eventually assassinated at age ~14 by the various men who were supposed to be his regents & guardians.

None of the Diadochi or 'successor' kingdoms which followed could quite replicate his successes & glory, and each declined massively in their own ways before eventually being swallowed up by the rising power of Rome one after another - Ptolemaic Egypt being the last to fall. Thus did the end come for Hellenistic civilization in our timeline, eclipsed by and in many ways absorbed into the ascendant Roman world which would now come to dominate the Mediterranean basin without contest for many more centuries.

However. What if Alexander beat his illness (natural or otherwise) and lived another 33 years, dying instead sometime after his sixty-sixth birthday in 290 BC? Could he have left a much more durable Argead Empire, and what effects would such a legacy have on the course of history - certainly in relation to the neighboring Romans & Carthaginians to the west which the 'King of Asia' and his heirs will likely either coexist with or crush?

Would this butterfly away Julius Caesar?