How would things be different?

[Hawk]

How would things be different in say the Roman world or other empires if Alexander the Great had no died at the age of 33? How much more do you think he could conquer? How much influence can one man have on the earth?Thanks and its just a interesting question.

[yiannis]

There's no telling what the world might have become if Alexander could consolidate his empire and not leave it to his generals to destroy, but it would certainly be different than what it is today!
It could be anything, from a paradise on earth to a global dictatorship but I guess we'll never know!
Imagine that with a strong eastern empire there would be no Roman empire. A western type empire in the east that could repel the attacks of the Mongols and the Turks and could control commerce in Europe and Asia etc...
All the above are fictional of course but if we consider that sometimes small accidental incidents change the route of history, imagine what implications something that big would have.Regards,
Yiannis

[alejandro]

HelloI think this is an interesting question, but was considered many times.
What about this one: Imagine that Alexander cannot tame Bucephalus, but is expelled by the horse, cracks his necks when he falls, and dies immediately.
Philip, however, does die the day of the marriage of his daughter and brother-in-law.
What would then happen? Certainly civil war again. But Persia will remain there. Probably it would have been even easier for the Romans to conquer Persia (it was always said that the Persian empire was quite weak by Alexander's time. On the other side, it could be that the successors of Darius were better than him). However, I think, there will be a huge difference: It was always said that the Hellenistic kingdoms, mainly by spreading Greek, allowed for the rapid transmission of a new sect: the Christianism (of course, the Roman roads helped too!). That is, Hellenistic kingdoms provided a certain homogeneity that led to relatively few administrative problems for a rising conquering power as Rome. If this "homogeneity device" that the Hellenistic kingdom represented, Roman consolidation of its conquered territories would have been much harder, and maybe the main Western religion nowadays would be that of Jupiter, Mars, Venus and the like (certainly Bacchus would be England's patron!
What do you think?
BestMiguel

[agesilaos]

This question has been approached fictionally in 'A Choice of Destinies' by Melissa Scott however it is long out of print but may be available from the library. She posits a world where Rome is defeated by Alexander, personally I can't see it Attacking Rome was like attacking Moscow, military suicide.

[jorgios]

That Alxanders army would be "committing military suicide" by attacking Rome. I doubt the fledgling republic could have done much to stop Alexander's rmy, afterall they had a difficult time repelling Pyrus of Epiros a few centuries later.
Although i wouldnt underestiamte the power of the early Republic's democratic governmet, nor the strength of their free peasantry as a fighting force in the earl legions, i just dont think they would be a match for the free yeomanry of Macedonia, or for that matter the Companion cavalry, or the unmatched marksmanship of the cretan bowmen auxillary. Rome had nothing like the this at the time.
Not to mention they were busy fighting various barbarians in Italy at the time.
Just my opinion though... does anybody disagree?

[dean]

Hi, Hannibal was knocking on Rome's door along with his elephants- during the second Punic war and gave them quite a fright.
It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if he hadn't been called back to Carthage.
Dean.

[davej]

I agree, even if Alexander managed to get a fleet together to transport his troops across to Italy I don't think he would have been able to hold Asia and attack on a new front. Perhaps after a couple of decades ruling in Asia he may have been able to consolidate enough to consider a new front. One other factor to bear in mind is that Rome was just so tenacious. They would have just kept raising armies until Alexander could not afford to fight anymore, much like happened with Hannibal. Rome was out generaled and outclassed but just kept fighting taking staggering losses along the way. Oh and don't forget the Roman allies remained faithful.

[marcus]

Except, Dave, that Rome was not in the same position in the 4th century as it was in the 1st century. They did have some allies, but they were by no means the extraordinary fighting machine that they were to become in later times.I don't think that Rome would have been able to stop Alexander (although I do agree that, had he gone to Italy, there is a good chance that Alexander would have lost a lot of his Asian empire).All the bestMarcus

[marcus]

Judging by the amount of time Hannibal was knocking around Italy doing very little to cause Rome a *real* nightmare (after Cannae), I reckon the whole thing would have petered out anyway. He might have reckoned that he didn't have the strength to invest Rome, but his not doing it effectively ended his chances of finishing things... and 18 years later (or whatever it was) he was still wandering around aimlessly.That's my view, anyway!All the bestMarcus

[maciek]

Hi guys!!!
I strogly belive that Pyrrus was no many centuries later or in 1st century but only fifty years after Alexander and we can compare how strong was the roman army then and in Alexander's times. Romans was in phase of uniting all tribes and when Pyrrus attacked them they had quite strong army (they learned from Cartaghenians how to fight with elephants what is interesting fact and just after that they became enemies). Those 50 years earlier their army was weaker as they developed fast so such period of time was quite large for them. Assuming all this I thing Alexander using one tribe agaist other would defeet Romans quite easy. Maciek

[yiannis]

When we're reffering to Hanibal one must not forget that he had no siege equipment.

[marcus]

No, he didn't, but he could have built it.OK, so he would have had to have had engineers to do it for him, but I cannot believe that he wouldn't have been able to find them.The raw materials were there...All the bestMarcus

[agesilaos]

I t is true that Rome in the Fourth Century was not the great power she was to become in the Third but she was well on the way. Despite the defeat at the Caudine Forks 321BC she rallied and went on to subjugate the Marsi, Paelegini and Hernicii, defeat rumblings in Etruria and eventually in 310 defeat the Samnites. None of these campaigns were easy and Rome was frequently up against it, yet she prevailed due to her tenacity and manpower reserves.Coupled with this one may doubt that the Samnites would welcome the Macedonians encroaching on their territories which would draw Alexander into a prolonged struggle in the hills and mountains where the phalanx would be useless and his cavalry not much better. The Samnites had almost Roman tenacity too.That Alexander would out-general them there can be no doubt but the political conditions that allowed the swift conquest of the Persian Empire did not pertain in Italy. Nor were there the riches of the Orient to encourage the men only some more rough pasture of which there was plenty closer to home.

[maciek]

I have to disagree that "the political conditions allowed the swift conquest of the Persian Empire" - It is true that it was chaos in Persia when Alexander became the king but when he was inAsia Minor and especially later in 333 year situation in Persia was under control - it was so well controlled that Darius could stand one faillure and stil be a king and he even gathered second army from diferent territories much larger then the first one. I think that situation in Greece was less stabilized then in Persia - if Alex would loose his first battle or the battle at Issos all city-states would revolt.
As for Romans - they were finnishing of conquering neibourhing tribes in north Appenin Pennisua it's true but saying that phalanx and cavalry would be usles in there gives me impresion that You forgot Pyrrus's two victories before his feilure - this proofs that macedonians could fight in this territory with succes. Sometimes there are some possibilities to choose the territory for the battle. And remember that Alex's conquest was not only on the flat ground but he also fought in mountains - Hindu-kush, in the river banks (which is no flat ground also) - Granikos, Tyre siege - was not fight at open space and they still won partially using the phalanx which first entered the city. It is not so simple to say that phalanx is usles anywhere - good commander can make a good use in every kind of land compliting his "task force" from right elements sutiable for given conditions.Maciek

[agesilaos]

What you say is quite correct, however , I was referring more to the Persian system of government which concentrated power in the person of the Great King thus once the King was defeated The Empire was conquered, whereas Rome could lose any number of consuls since they would spring hydra-like from the active body politic, there is a good short analysis of this consideration in 'The Prince' by Machievelli.I accept that the phalanx would not be totally useless but Pyrrhos did encounter difficulty using it, interspersing his speirai with units of Oscan infantry, also Pyrrhos' experience shows that the Roman army could stand up to the Macedonian system,and whilst he did win those two battles, Heraclea and Asculum, they were both closely fought and expensive.All in all though no one can say how it would have gone, though it is interesting to speculate.