What if...

[jona]

Yesterday, I had a party because my book has been published and because I reached the age of 40. At the end of the evening, one of my guests asked what would have happened if Alexander had reached the same age. Because Nick Welman had already left, there was no expert to ask.So, what do you think? His last plan was to circumnavigate the Arabian peninsula, and I guess he would have succeeded. In the last weeks of 323, he would have reached Egypt. Other troops may have marched to Egypt by land; they now united in the country of the Nile.Meanwhile, the Lamian war had broken out (preparations were well under way before Alexander died), but it was probably crushed by Antipater and Craterus. (Antipater may have considered revolt, but was probably too hated in Greece to be accepted as fellow-rebel.)So, I assume that Alexander will have executed one of his final plans: the invasion of Carthage. Let's assume he did that in 322 and was again successful. He would have gone to the Ocean in 321, will have received tokens of submission from the Phoenician cities in Spain, and will have visited Sicily - let's say in 320. But then?Would he have intervened in the war between the Samnites and Rome (allies of his uncle Alexander of Epirus)? Would he have gone to Epirus or to Greece? Would he have attacked the Greeks? Would he have kept his army of Greek mercenaries and Iranians together under Macedonian command, or was he forced to proclaim some sort of unity of mankind?Jona

[nick]

Hi Companions ---First of all: I would like to thank Jona for his hospitality and his generosity yesterday night (in Amsterdam, The Netherlands). I suppose that there were more than 60 people celebrating the publication of his new book and the atmosphere created by Jona was brilliant.Jona's publication coincided with the publication of the Dutch Worthington-translation of "Man & God" in which Worthington discusses his views about his "Alexander the Accursed". I surely hope that Jona's original insights will be much more rewarded in terms of sales as they incorporate a more balanced view on both Alexander and Darius.(For the record: I didn't leave prematurely. It was ten-fiftheen p.m. and it is was around midnight before we reached home.)And for the question: I suppose that after Arabia the conquest of Carthage would have meant just another Tyre. Long siege. Alexander would have been bored. So Alexander would have crossed the Saharan desert (still greener and friendlier in climate than in our days). He would have ended up in present day Nigeria. That would have changed the African-European relationship for ever.Regards ---Nick

[ruthaki]

Jona, chronia polla! (too bad I don't have the Greek alphabet in my type so I could write it out properly!)

[chris]

HiAn interesting question, but what if he had died earlier? Perhaps pursuing Darias? Chris

[jona]

What if Alexander had died during the pursuit of Darius?I guess that if it had happened before Bessus took him captive, and Darius was still in charge, Parmenio would have led back the Macedonians to Babylonia, and would have accepted a deal with the Euphrates as border. This was something that could be controlled by the Macedonians, could be consolidated, and could be presented to Europe as a punishment of Persia.After this, the world would have seen a quarrel about the succession of Alexander not unlike that of 323, but with other players. Parmenio was still powerful and would have played the role of Perdiccas. Maybe he would have had more success. Perhaps Darius was killed by one of his courtiers, and replaced by another king.There would be no Gandara art, no ideas about Alexander's orientalisation, no deification. We would have had a kinder idea of Alexander.Jona

[jona]

"the Saharan desert (still greener and friendlier in climate than in our days)"You're probably right, but what is the evidence for the fourth century BCE? I know that this was true in the third millennium, but this is new to me.Jona

[xxx]

A kinder idea of Alexander? I think not. If one chooses to see Alexander as a uncultured beast of violence, one does not have to have Alexander live after the death of Darius. But again, that's not my particular opinion.Had he died in pursuit of Darius I would not have at all been surprised to see the Persians pursue fleeing Macedonians, because there was no 'one' Macedonian to follow.I'm not convinced that Parmenio was a particularly great general, but there is no question he had a following. But then so did Kratero, the friends of Alexander etc. The confusion would have been massive and the murders expansive. One cannot afford that when not on home ground.In the end, it would have been Antipater.As to what he would have done if he survived the illness in Babylon? That's a moot point - he would have had to avoid the chest injury - what does surprise me is that with all these scholars writing here and there, no one has yet seemed to figure out Alexander would have known his days were numbered after such an injury and this explains much of his post-injury behavior.Congrats on your book getting published.Regards,Tre

[jona]

"what does surprise me is that with all these scholars writing here and there, no one has yet seemed to figure out Alexander would have known his days were numbered after such an injury"Perhaps there was no serious chest injury. One of the finest pieces of Bosworth's research in *Alexander in the east* concerns this wound. There are two accounts: that of Ptolemy, who says that there was air coming out of Alexander's chest (i.e., he had a pneumothorax) and he was very, very badly wounded; and that of Nearchus, who says that Alexander was capable of riding a horse shortly after he had received the wound.These accounts can not both be true. Someone with a pneumothorax can not ride a horse; someone who can ride a horse can not have a pneumothorax. Either Ptolemy or Nearchus is wrong, and it is easy to see that this must be Ptolemy, who was not present. Nearchus, on the other hand, was close to Alexander during his recovery.Plutarch gives a different description of the chest wound. He says that Alexander was hit by this arrow in his sternum (the vertical bone in your chest). If Alexander had been hit over there, he would have been able to ride a horse. With some difficulty.It seems, therefore, that Alexander was hit in the sternum and recovered fairly quickly. It is possible that his propaganda team proclaimed that he had a pneumothorax, so that everyone who saw the king riding a horse knew that the son of Zeus had the same self-healing qualities as the eternal gods.Bosworth's story gives an acceptable explanation to more sources, and I think it is a more reasonable reconstruction than is Lane Fox's, who says that Alexander remained wounded to the end of his days. LF's account is fascinating, but he simply ignores differing sources.Jona

[xxx]

Alas, I am more of an expert on this than Bosworth as I can do the history and the medicine. His argument is quite illogical BTW. Bosworth has his moments, but this area isn't one of them.

[jona]

This is very intriguing. Can you please give some additional information? Bosworth's interpretation is on page 61-64 in *Alexander in the East*.Jona

[xxx]

Jona, I own Alexander and the East and am very familiar with Bosworth's work. However, I don't find him particularly good at interpreting source material, let's leave it at that. A couple of points though:Aren't you the one who says you never believe anything Plutarch writes - how come in this instance? Although Plutarch is a very clever writer and you would be doing yourself a disservice to disregard all of his material.I give you four names - Arrian, Ptolemy, Plutarch and Bosworth. Who would be the person of the four the least familiar with war wounds? It's a tie! Sternum, rib or diaphragm say I. Was bone cut - quite possibly and quite possibly a broken chunk was removed.What is the likelihood that Ptolemy would not know the extent of Alexander's wound? About as likely as I will be elected US president tonight.What Nearchus wrote has nothing to do with what type of injury Alexander suffered, nor do we know exactly when he mounted that horse. Arrian liked the story and would have appreciated how difficult it was. Curtius liked the whole story and is the only one who bothers to mention which side he was wounded in and is probably correct as the arrow did not pierce the King's shield and we know from depictions he was right-handed. Curtius finds the journey down river the more important thing. Plutarch tends to make mistakes about wounds and already he changed his story a bit from his essay to his biography of Alexander. Although he was trying to be more careful in his biography. 95.5% of all penetrating injuries to the chest result in injury to the lung.Could he have survived a lung injury? Yes. We know because it was written about and often the results were not particularly good, i.e. the treatment of internal abcesses.Would he have healed peachy keen? No.Is there evidence of this? Yes if you read hard enough.I could go on and on but then I'd have to write a serious article

[jona]

Sounds credible! I stand corrected.BTW: what I say about Plutarch (don't believe him) refered to his youth stories.Jona

[amyntoros]

Why not write the article? If you have the time, that is. I'd certainly love to read it and I'm sure it would be a welcome addition to this site. I don't know if Nick is actively reading the posts right now, but I'm betting he'll agree. This injury has been discussed time and again by various authors (who don't have any medical authority). Time to finally lay it to rest? :-)Best regards,Lind Ann

[Nicator]

First off, congratulations on your book. This is your second, I think? Either way, quite an accomplishment. As for your post, I'm going to take a different approach than the rest. I believe if ATG survived his sickness/poisoning bout and marched on Arabia, his mixed troops would have been his undoing. If he somehow managed another ATG miracle and subdued Arabia, then his next target would have more likely been Ecbatana and Bactria. He never fully pacified these regions, and with all the revolts and tribal excursions in these areas, he would likely not want to advance further west until these regions were handled properly. Only then would he advance upon Sicily and Carthage. It's all conjecture, so it doesn't matter which story you choose.later Nicator