help!

[Mike]

I am writing a paper on what the world would be like if alexander the great wouldnt have died so young. I have some basic ideas, there might be two great european empires the greek and Romans and i've gone itno some thought about that, can anyone else think of topics to get me started?

[S]

Greetings Mike,
Here are a few ideas:
1) Would monotheistic religious thoughts have spread so quickly?
2) What, if any, would have been the impact on trade or cultural exchange due to trade?
3) What group other than Macedonia would have become the dominant group? Would "Greek culture" have spread so far?
4) What would have been the influence of the Persian empire on the world without Alexander? (This would be an interesting one- now *there's* a book waiting to be written!!)
Regards,
Sikander

[nick]

Would this Forum have existed at all?Regards - Nick

[aen]

Hmmm,I have an idea that the Roman sphere wouldn't have developed so healthily. I think it more likely that Carthage would have risen to be the great second power if Alexander's Hellenic empire had held together.

[Tre]

There is a book out there, although in my opinion of somewhat dubious quality, that has a scenario of what would have happened had Alexander died at the Granicus and the Persian Empire took over:What If?: The World's Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been
by Robert Cowley (Editor), Stephen E. Ambrose (Editor), David McCulloughRegards,Tre

[S]

Greetings Nick,
That's a good one, too-
I do sometimes wonder how long the Persian empire would
have lasted without Alexander, and who would have ruled it, and what changes would have taken place...
Let's see- Alexander not dying young, Alexander living into old age.. other topics might also include
what his children would have accomplished, if anything
(somehow, I don't think that would have gone as well as one might have hoped). Also, what would have been the possible influence of the women in his life, such as his mother and wives?
What would have happened in Egypt?
Would African exploration have occurred on a large scale?
How far would this empire have extended into the North, East and West?
This is a good question- the possibilities seem to become endless!
As an aside, Nick, what do you think is the *best* book out on the Persian empire and *its* influence?
Regards,
Sikander

[karen]

I had read somewhere that the eminent historian Arnold Toynbee had written a speculation on what would have happened if Alexander had lived longer. Here's a reference to it on the web: http://www.soton.ac.uk/~scp93ch/yucks/v6i4.html. Click on "...and who lived by the railway cuttings at Nazareth." Gives publication info.Love & peace,
Karen

[yiannis]

I think that Carthage, being cut off by its mother city and deprived of the Eastern markets, wouldn't have developed much. They couldn't even handle the Greek Sicilian colonies, how could they resist Alexander?One other thing that wouldn't have happened (at least not as we know it today) is the spread of Christianity. (Which of course was a consequence of the opening of boarders that Rome's domination brought, which was a result of the unification that Alexander's conquest brought...)

[nick]

Hi Sikander -Good to read your contributions again.Personally, I like Wieseh+¦fer (Ancient Persia) best - though it is concise and he is short and brief on Achaemenid Persia. Roughly 100 pages or so of a total of some 300 pages (the rest on Parthia, Sassanids and Diadochi). But he really has got his things together in a coherent way.I find Cook (The Persian Empire) the most sympathetic book on the Achaemenids. But maybe that is the Dutch tendency of siding with the underdog. His work shows the highest level of "empathy" with his subject.Reluctantly, I would put Briant (Cyrus to Alexander) on the third place. Reluctantly, because I am fully aware of the academic standard of this work that would entitle it to be number one. Because, in fact, it is the best. Everything one could possibly want to know about the Achaemenids, is in there. The problem is its sheer size. No matter how interested I am in ancient Persia, there is always a moment that my motivation to read the next chapter begins to slip away. You need to be a disciplined student of history to really appreciate Briant.I can't really connect to Olmstead (History of the Persian Empire). Dry. Outdated. Old fashioned view on the confrontation between Greeks & Persians. He is on no. 4, but with a large (very large, extremely large) distance.Regards -
Nick

[Sam L]

I have answered somewhere before in regards to Romans vs Alex question and I'd like to expand on this subject here.1) Alex would almost certainly not have sufficient resources to contest Rome in the West after establishing his eastern empire- his empire was established far too quickly and hence unstable. He would have to devote all his genius to consolidating his grip on his new-found empire.His decendants might only able to interfere probably later during the Punic War era with Hannibal - by then I would agree that Carthage is not itself a civilisation that is all that hot militarily except for a brilliant general like Hannibal.Rome/ Greece would have been the major powers with Carthage a minor third role if it ever manages to survive between these two in the first place.2) Alex's success against the Persians were a lot due to Persian incompetence. Darius' Persian Empire was probably in the decline stage judging by the fact that it only took Alex a few major battles for the mass defection/ submission that followed on the part of the Persians. Darius was clearly not a quality ruler either politically or militarily (nor commanded much loyalty). Without Alex it is most probable the Persian Empire would have collapsed not too long after via other factors.3) Let us not get too carried away by historical opportunities allowing these great men to achieve their deeds. Much as Alex prevailed due to Persian decay and the Roman army over phalanx due to decay on the part of Macedonians. History's lessons have proved all civilisation gone through cycles of strength, complacency, corruption and decline- and these factors have far more to play than the symbolic leaders of these civilisations. At the decaying days of Rome even a bunch of nomadic Huns- outcasts and exiled by the Chinese - managed to break the Roman Empire.Supremacy would depend far more on the health of the general culture of the respective people than any military system or individual.

[nick]

Dear Sam,Did you really want us to share our views? Or did you have your mind made up before posting your question? It feels like I have wasted my time on you.Have a nice time in your private universe.Nick

[Sam]

Please read my reply carefully- I've been careful to use phrases such as "almost certainly", "might only able", "most probable" in a fair few places- hardly one whose mind is set. The question was originally posted by Mike also- not me. A Forum is naturally a place for us all to share our views- I merely based my conjecture on a few basic widely agreed upon premises and being careful in pointing out factors to support my conclusions. I apologise if I happen to somehow arouse ill feelings in some but in keeping with good scholarly spirit you are most welcome to voice your disagreement by objectively articulating supporting factors.Feel free to spent some time in your own universe and offer us an intelligent, well supported alternative scenario which we can all learn and share your side of the knowledge on this subject matter.

[S]

Greetings Nick, and thanks for the information on the Persian books. When I get back I'll look those up.
Regards,
Sikander

[nick]

Hi Sam -Sander van Dorst directed me to this site about the Roman army. I find it quite detailed and it has lots of refreshing insights:http://webpages.charter.net/brueggeman/ ... mlAlthough it doesn't exactly answer the question how the Romans did beat the phalanx, it offers lot of information to base new theories on...I especially like the observation that in ancient warfare hand-to-hand combat lasted only 5 minutes. That was the maximum a soldier could bear. The Romans probably excelled in quickly replacing their exhausted frontline with fresh troops - something that I can't see happening in a dense phalanx formation.Regards -
Nick

[marcus]

Hi Sam,There might be something in your conjectures, certainly - and I usually try to resist speculating too much on these scenarious, because they are, as you say, as much to do with the situation at the particular time as with the quality of the armies or generals involved.But I would take some issue with your comments about the Persian empire... well, the quality of Darius, particularly. I think you are right, that on the whole the empire was in decline, but I have come to the conclusion, over time, that Darius was a far more effective king, both politically and militarily, than 'we' often give him credit. Originally my viewpoint was the same as you expound there.I don't have time to write an essay on the subject, unfortunately, but the things that I considered, and which we discussed here a few weeks ago, in fact, included:(1) the tremendous loyalty that the PErsian nobles displayed to the king up to the end - consider that Darius was never deposed by Bessus et al - he was still their king, up to the point where they decided it was indeed expedient to kill him. (And also consider those nobles who refused to take part in holding him a prisoner).
(2) Darius' tactically excellent manoeuvre at Issus, which caught Alexander completely off-guard.
(3) Darius' tactically sound decision to leave the field at Issus, thus prolonging the war and giving him a chance to raise another army (which he managed to do with the entire Persian nobility in support - no disloyalty there).There were probably many things wrong with the PErsian empire, which made things 'easier' for Alexander, but personally I don't believe Darius was one of them.All the bestMArcus