Just a little more time...

[Nicator]

Hello All,
After reading the end of Hammond's book "The Genius of Alexander the Great" the thought struck me as to just what could have happened and how the Hellenistic world would have ended up if Alexander had just 15 more years to consolidate power, replace Hephaestion as the Chiliarches of Asia, and designated a proper line of succession. My feeling is that our modern world would be vastly different today, and Rome itself may have been a Hellenistic province.
later Nicator

[heinrich]

I think not. Alexander had already lost control of Sogdia, Bactria, and the three Indian provinces. Had he gone to the west, the Iranian satrapies (six rebels in 325/324) would have become unquiet as well. I suppose Alexander would have remained undefeated on his march to the west, would have seen the Ocean, and would have returned to Macedon; meanwhile, in the east, a new Persian Empire would have risen (as in fact happened under Seleucus), and after a couple of years, Spain and Italy would have revolted as well. Maybe a unified Greece/Sicily/Macedonia/Anatolia was possible, like the Byzantine world. That would still have been quite an achievement, though.HM

[Paralus]

I'd tend to agree Heinrich.Porus was independent basically from the moment the Macedonians moved on. Alexander knew this and it is in large part the reason he was made satrap.Bactria and Sogdiana were never really settled - as much campaigning attests. Truth be told the Persians just "controlled" them.An interesting thought though. Had Alexander not been put away by his Marshalls (and yes I think that a real possibility) his next order of business would have been his usual: conquest. Let's say he took the "Arabs". How long before he found (modern) Saudi Arabia and Yemen worse that India? Not long methinks. But would he have turned west? I think not - to staid - he was looking for the "ocean".Mind you, had he survived his "Arabian adventure" and lived on to say the turn of the century would he have accomplished what Pyyrhus couldn't at Heracleia or Asculum?Pretty tall order in your late fifties/early sixties having lead the charge in every battle.My personal wish? To see what Philip II and his army would have done to Falminius at Cynoscephale in 196 rather than the pale copy Philip V.

[Nicator]

"I think not. Alexander had already lost control of Sogdia, Bactria, and the three Indian provinces." With respect to the Sogdian and Bactrian provinces, I beg to differ. The Indian provinces are a different matter. But the point of the post was to elicit thought on what could have happened if Alexander lived long enough to both stabilize and consolidate the power base, and appoint a legitimate line of succession. While he lived, the provinces held fast, only the pre-mature rumor(s) of his death were enough to incite another rebellion. With respect to India, he probably never fully controlled them anyway. They knew that he was moving on, and additionally, that he was going to be too far away to be of much concern when he left. His program of initiating the Persian youth (and presumably the youth of other conquered countries)into the Macedonian way of war (life) I think would have paid vast dividends down the road towards building a stable empire. Chiliarches' that were sympathetic to his ideals would have also paid dividends down the road. He's already planted the cities across the world and planned on fortifying them with 10,000 Hellene men each. Unfortunately, this was a stillborn project from the beginning. What could have been had this not been blown out of existance so early on? later Nicator

[Paralus]

I think the "political" marriage to Roxane (the Sogdian nobleman's daughter) is instructive. He apparently felt a dynastic marriage might help settle what was (and remains for today's hegemon) a difficult to control area and population.I'm not so certain that the west was really figuring on Alexander's "radar" - he definitely seemed so much more captivated by the "unknown" to the east. That is not to say that had he lived to say Antipater's age that Rome and /or Carthage would not have demanded his attention.How long do you think Sogdiana or Bactria would have taken to rise up should Alexander have headed to Italy in about 315 or so? Possibly old Antigonous Monopthalmos would have found himself enduring a "groundhog day" of the late 330's? Who might Alexander have trusted to run the east whilst he campaigned in Italy /Africa? I know Hepaestion was the Empire's "vizier", but would you really have trusted him to perform the sort of job Monopthalmos had circa Issus - Gaugemela? Questions, questions.On another "what if" subject, I've often wondered what history would look like had the bonehead Nicias take Lamachus' (absolutely correct I think) advice when the Athenian armada arrived in Sicily and immediately invested Syracuse. Exactly what Alexander would have done...the jugular. Mmmmm...Have you read Hammond's "Philip of Macedon"? Provides an excellent account of the "giant's shoulders" (in the idiom) that Alexander started from.Michael.

[Nicator]

"How long do you think Sogdiana or Bactria would have taken to rise up should Alexander have headed to Italy in about 315 or so?"I think this province was pacified both from military reduction and garrisoning, and from the political marriage to Roxane. Had the empire lasted long enough to stabilize, and allowed a strong economy to grow, I think we would be looking at a vastly different aftermath. Most people(s) don't complain when things are running smooth. The economic potential of Asia was vast, and even when his successors were duking it out amongst themselves the economies prospered (not to mention the burgeoning economy of Athens all throughout Alexander's reign). I think stability is the key, therefore, we can't assume things would have continued as before the conquest. I haven't read Hammond's book on Philip, (didn't even know of its existance). When I finish my epic, maybe I'll give it a gander. later Nicator

[TrueMacedonian]

If you want to know what would have ended up happening to the ancient greek city-states if Alexander would have lived,most probable answer,they would have remained under his hegemon. Now what would have happened to Macedonia itself?It would have developed as the only super power in the ancient world without rival.
How would've the ancient greeks felt with another 20 years of Alexander ruler of all greece? Endless anger and fear from a foreign ruler.
If Alexander had lived and had spurned out sons and daughters I would have to say that I do not think that they would have matched his life in even 2 lifetimes. Someone like Alexander is a once in a lifetime deal.Just like Julius Caesar. Empire builders.
Maybe you guys should check out some Eugene Borza books,like In The Shadows Of Olympus. Great read without barely an error,unlike Hammonds books which are full of errors.

[Paralus]

"Great read without barely an error,unlike Hammonds books which are full of errors."Now that's a call I wouldn't make - even when fuming!I'd have to say that Hammond's view (does html formatting work here?) of Alexander may not always match my own (as I've said elsewhere, I tend strongly to the Ernst Badian/Peter Green view), but I think I'd stop well short of decclaring his works "full of errors".Hammond's "Philip of Macedon" (Duckworth 1994; rep 2002) is, I think, an excellent treatment of the man who was undoubtedly Europe's "first statesman". For those whom Alexander holds a fascination, his father Philip - who near single-handedly forged the unified kingdom of Macedon and its professional army - is book one, rather than the prologue. What may have happened to history had the Athenians manned 150-200 triremes and sailed into the Thermaic Gulf towards Pella as Philip marched onto the Boeotian plain?It never happened so we'll never know.