Alexander dies at 80?

[maximus]

Hi Guys,
For many years now iv always wondered about "What ifs". I think the biggest "what if" of all time would beif Alexander the Great had not died at the age of 33 in Babylon. Asking my history teachers, none have been able to help me in my quest for the hugest what if of all time.Finding information about Alexander is not hard so for the past year i have been trying to work out a possible timeline of events if Alexadner had not died at 33.However not being very old of age i do not have a full knowledge of Alexander the Great. Any suggestions what might have happened will be much apperciated.

[ruthaki]

Well a couple of the old fellows who started out with Philip lived to very old ages. Antipatros was in his late 70's or early 80's, so was Antigonos One-Eyed. Maybe if you look into the events around their lives you might guess what could have happened to Alexander. (In particular Antigonos who went on and on like the energizer bunny. Grand old fellow! Amazing.)

[centurion]

Hail Maximus,
Frankly, I believe that Alexander's empire would have remained intact for approximately a decade or two longer, at most. You see, although Alexander was a great conqueror, he was, first and foremost, a conqueror. Although he had new cities built, he also destroyed quite a few of them (starting with Thebes, I believe). He is on record as having spared the population of this or that city, or ordering that the women not be touched (a TRULY astounding order in those days); It is also recorded that he let his troops run wild and sack whole cities, with the populace being killed or sold into slavery. He rewarded his officers and men, but killed his friend Cleitus the Black, and had Parmenion assassinated. There's a mass of contradictions for you. And I do believe that Aristotle (or Socrates) said that "Actions are character" Alexander's actions suggest (to me, anyway) that he was more interested in his personal glory than in creating and maintaining an empire.
Additionally, there is the fact that large numbers of people pledged allegiance to him when he (and his army) were present, but rose in revolt when he and his army were safely distant. This would seem to indicate that not all the "liberated" peoples were exactly enthusiastic about becoming part of his empire.
Lastly, there was very little holding Alexander's empire together other than Alexander. Rather than loyalty to an idea (such as a Republic, Democracy, or freedom), his subjects' loyalty was personified-in Alexander. Sole power rested with him, and yet he created very little and was constantly at war.
All these factors lead me to belive that his empire would not have been an enduring one. Had he lived until 80, I think that history would show his reign to be an excellent example of the fact that having is not the same as wanting, and that it is far easier to conquer an empire than to maintain it.
My apologies for the length of this reply. My girlfriend does say that I have a nasty habit of going on and on...
Best regards,
Centurion

[jona]

I guess he would have conquered the west and lost the east. The real Alexander had already suffered setbacks: Sogdia was not really conquered and had revolted in 325, and the Indians had been able to expell Nearchus from Patala. If Alexander had gone to the west, unrest would have spread to Bactria and Iran. After all, Iran was already unquiet (some five or six rebels in 325-324).Meanwhile, I guess that in the west, Alexander would have been victorious. He could have taken Carthage and might have conquered Sicily; he would have reached Spain, would have seen the Ocean, and may have returned to Macedonia.Interestingly, your question has ancient anteqedents. The great Roman historian Livy devotes a brief essay to the question whether Alexander could have conquered the Romans (book nine).Jona

[maximus]

I believe that Alexander could have continued where his Uncle Alexadner of Epirus left off. After his campaign in Asia he certainly would not have stopped there. Maybe the citizens might have employed him after Alexadners death to keep the Romans and such under control.By the way Jona could you give a site where i could read and/or download Livy's essay on ALexander and the Romans.Thanx for the replies

[jona]

The Latin text is at http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/livy/liv.9.shtml , but I don't know a translation.Jona

[alejandro]

Hi CenturionI do certainly agree that GÇ£actions are characterGÇ¥, but I disagree with your conclusion. I believe that Alexander realized that he needed to use different strategies in different situations, not always having to maintain order by brute force (eg, his marriage to Roxanne was probably a political move that ensured that Bactria wouldnGÇÖt be a pain in the GǪ as soon as he left it).I think that many people consider Alexander a conqueror rather than an empire builder, and maybe it is the case, given the information we have. But we also need to consider that he died relatively young, and so his policies are, mainly due to historiansGÇÖ lack of interest, unknown (except for the historically doubtful GÇ£last plansGÇ¥ that were rejected by the Macedonian assembly after Alexander died). But there is one fact that cannot be rejected and that, at least for me, speaks loads about AlexGÇÖs imperial concerns: the Susa weddings. This was crucial to ensure a quiet East while, allegedly, he could concentrate on the West and GÇ£satisfy his conquering thirstGÇ¥. This, together with the incorporation of Persian regiments to his army and the training of Persians into Macedonian warfare techniques, will probably allow for a much more homogeneous and easily manageable Eastern empire than is usually assumed.Another question is whether Alex did this ONLY because he wanted to ensure a smooth conquest of the West, or whether it was pure statesmanship. But still, the foundations for a strong Eastern empire, had Alex survived until he was GÇôsay- 70 (say 300BC), were already there. If an heir 30 years old were available by then, what could have stopped a dynasty to flourish then?Kind regardsAlejandro

[beausefaless]

(13) Many years?The reason why your history teachers have not been able to help with your quest for the hugest what if of all time is simple, they are being polite but their minds are saying....*IF* frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their ass every time they *JUMPED*. (ouch)

[susan]

There's a "What if.." essay by Arnold Toynbee on this theme. If I remember rightly, Alexander becomes senile at the endSusan

[jona]

Korsakov?

[susan]

http://www.uchronia.net/bib.cgi/label.h ... xanToynbee, Arnold J. "If Alexander the Great had Lived On".What if: Alexander of Macedon listened to his physicians' advice in 323 BCE, and later returned to the Mediterranean.
Summary: How Alexander made the Phoenicians his Navy, conquered Carthage, allied with Rome, conquered India and Ch'in and finally died in 287 BCE.
Published: In Some Problems in Greek History, Oxford University 1969.Susan

[marcus]

Hi Andrew,Great quote, if a bit harsh on the poor lad. I can think of a few people I'd like to quote that to!All the bestMarcus

[maximus]

Ha Ha Ha, by the way ur not funny Andrew