What will happen if Alexander had reached the gange river? Will his empire survive to it? would he have achieved "his mission"? The future of all the humanity would have changed... sure...but why he didn't do it? Could he watch "far in the time"? His soldiers were well-trained and his mercenaries were the best than ever army could have but there was a frontier that Alexander didn't cross. It will be very difficult to say... Was he "afraid" to conquest so far in the east? How many times Alexander go back to Athens during his campaign? He was certainly attached to his bornland... I'dd like to hear all of us and I'm sorry if my english is not very good...
Some suggestions and projections in this history are well-comed, Don't hesitate to make some hypothesis and theoris about.
Enigma 2 (the truth)
Moderator: pothos moderators
-
marcus
- Somatophylax
- Posts: 4871
- Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
- Location: Nottingham, England
- Has thanked: 45 times
- Been thanked: 3 times
Re: Enigma 2 (the truth)
Hi Archange,Archange wrote:What will happen if Alexander had reached the gange river? Will his empire survive to it? would he have achieved "his mission"? The future of all the humanity would have changed... sure...but why he didn't do it? Could he watch "far in the time"? His soldiers were well-trained and his mercenaries were the best than ever army could have but there was a frontier that Alexander didn't cross. It will be very difficult to say... Was he "afraid" to conquest so far in the east? How many times Alexander go back to Athens during his campaign? He was certainly attached to his bornland... I'dd like to hear all of us and I'm sorry if my english is not very good...
Some suggestions and projections in this history are well-comed, Don't hesitate to make some hypothesis and theoris about.
You ask "why he didn't do it". Well, the simple answer to that is that his army refused to march any further, and he was forced to turn back because there's no way he could have gone on alone (even with his non-Macedonian soldiers). Whether or not he was actually pleased to have an excuse to turn back we'll never know, although there are certainly some who think so.
You don't need to apologise for your English - it's better than I could write in any other language.
ATB
-
Efstathios
- Hetairos (companion)
- Posts: 760
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:08 pm
- Location: Athens,Greece
- Has thanked: 1 time
That would have happened if had he marched to the west afterwards.The future of all the humanity would have changed
Why he didnt go further east? Because his Macedonian old guard couldnt go on anymore.I dont know if he had enough backup from Macedonia to go on.Lets not forget that there was a new generation of Macedonian soldiers, that could be enough in numbers to form a new base for his army.A base that would be strong enough to influence and support the Persian re-enforcements.
He had conquered the Persian empire, and i dont think that he liked very much what he saw after Poros.Maybe when he thought of the facts, he decided that it was better to go west,and south where there were a lot more things to conquer, like Rome, Arabia and Gaul.
Hello,
Yes as Marcus has pointed out- Alexander didn't stop, he got stopped by his men.
If he had reached the Ganges, then I don't know, but I suspect that the next hill would have seen interesting to climb and then the one after that. I don't think that Alexander planned on stopping. We did have a very interesting idea thrown in on the forum as to whether the mutiny at the Beas was conjured up to give Alexander a "reason" to come back. But I opt for the former.
Would the future of humanity have changed? I think that little would have changed as a result. What difference would it have made? India was one "big" place and he saw the futility of trying to marshal it.
Well, that is just my sixpence.
Best regards,
Dean
Yes as Marcus has pointed out- Alexander didn't stop, he got stopped by his men.
If he had reached the Ganges, then I don't know, but I suspect that the next hill would have seen interesting to climb and then the one after that. I don't think that Alexander planned on stopping. We did have a very interesting idea thrown in on the forum as to whether the mutiny at the Beas was conjured up to give Alexander a "reason" to come back. But I opt for the former.
Would the future of humanity have changed? I think that little would have changed as a result. What difference would it have made? India was one "big" place and he saw the futility of trying to marshal it.
Well, that is just my sixpence.
Best regards,
Dean
carpe diem
-
jasonxx
I feel Alexander couldnthave gone on and on. Any empire can become overstretched and we gotta give Alexander some credit for commonsense and knowing when to turn back. His experiences with Porus Spitamenes and the other Eastern uprisings must have taught hin that he can keep knocking them over but they keep comming back. As conquerers ever since this region is near impossible to conquer and maintain control.
I think Alexander realised. with his spies etc he would have heard chatter about mutinies and unhappyness in his troops. A brainy man would know this and use it as an excuse to turn back. So he still looks good and his troops get the blame for what was a good Idea anyway. Its the old saying think of a good Idea and make someone else believe they thought about it.
Besides Alexander didnt stop he continued to fight and consolodate his empire down the river to the Ocean. As for his thirst for a largewr Empire it makes more sense to turn West he would be more familiar with what was Westward and must have been confident on rolling Carthage. Once Carthage was his the Rest of Western Europe would fall. As with his vast monies and new armies he could hit Westaern Europe from two points Through Greece and across the Med to Sicily and Italy.
Kenny
I think Alexander realised. with his spies etc he would have heard chatter about mutinies and unhappyness in his troops. A brainy man would know this and use it as an excuse to turn back. So he still looks good and his troops get the blame for what was a good Idea anyway. Its the old saying think of a good Idea and make someone else believe they thought about it.
Besides Alexander didnt stop he continued to fight and consolodate his empire down the river to the Ocean. As for his thirst for a largewr Empire it makes more sense to turn West he would be more familiar with what was Westward and must have been confident on rolling Carthage. Once Carthage was his the Rest of Western Europe would fall. As with his vast monies and new armies he could hit Westaern Europe from two points Through Greece and across the Med to Sicily and Italy.
Kenny
-
athenas owl
- Hetairos (companion)
- Posts: 401
- Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:07 am
- Location: US
I lay no claim to scholarship, and I'm no big fan of "what if", but one thing I do ponder about an Alexander that had survived and was able to conquer western Europe and Africa.
How would his conquering the Romans have altered the basic structure of Chrisitanity, assuming that it did rise in his wake. Would the Catholic Church have been very different because the Roman system was not adapted by it in it's heirarchy? Would a more Greek like system have prevailed.
Of course, if Alexander had won the West, it is very probable or possible that Chrisitanity would not have ever existed, but for the sake of this argument, how do you think an early Chrisitan church would have differed and would it have had the impact on Western society it did, if it didn't have the Roman system to so easliy take over?
How would his conquering the Romans have altered the basic structure of Chrisitanity, assuming that it did rise in his wake. Would the Catholic Church have been very different because the Roman system was not adapted by it in it's heirarchy? Would a more Greek like system have prevailed.
Of course, if Alexander had won the West, it is very probable or possible that Chrisitanity would not have ever existed, but for the sake of this argument, how do you think an early Chrisitan church would have differed and would it have had the impact on Western society it did, if it didn't have the Roman system to so easliy take over?
-
jasonxx
If Alexander and the Macedonian Empire was instead of The Roamn Empire. Its pretty certain that Christianity wouldnt have started.
Alexander was not a tyranical and brutal ruler as were the Romans. The Jews were desperate for somthing to ease the opresion and rule of the Romans. With regard to Jewish Messiahs. If the Jewish Rebelion that happened at the Time of Masada was succesful then those guys would have been classed as blessed for driving out the Romans.
The Jews were in real need and it was handy a charismatic mouth piece like Jesus came along. Then the Romans adopted christianity as it has always been a good rightious moner spinner.
Kenny
Alexander was not a tyranical and brutal ruler as were the Romans. The Jews were desperate for somthing to ease the opresion and rule of the Romans. With regard to Jewish Messiahs. If the Jewish Rebelion that happened at the Time of Masada was succesful then those guys would have been classed as blessed for driving out the Romans.
The Jews were in real need and it was handy a charismatic mouth piece like Jesus came along. Then the Romans adopted christianity as it has always been a good rightious moner spinner.
Kenny
Hi, all.
I don’t see many differences between what happened and what could have happened as far as Christianity is concerned.
After all, in the second century b.C. the Jews had already rebelled against the Seleucids, who were a Macedonic empire and not always tolerant in religious matters; it was then that prophets and Messiahs began to proliferate.
Moreover, in a Macedonic empire nothing could prevent a Greek-speaking and extremely cultured Hebrew merchant (an affluent citizen, perhaps a supplier of the army) from finally inventing Christianism, it being understood that Jesus’s line of thought (which was also St.Peter’s and St.James’s, for the little we know about it) lost and Paul’s won.
Later, a Christian Greek empire existed and lasted 1200 years; why does Western culture always forget the Byzantines? To sum up, I think that the “what ifs” in this case could’t carry us very far from our present reality. All the best Azara
(Jasonxx, how is your shoulder?)
I don’t see many differences between what happened and what could have happened as far as Christianity is concerned.
After all, in the second century b.C. the Jews had already rebelled against the Seleucids, who were a Macedonic empire and not always tolerant in religious matters; it was then that prophets and Messiahs began to proliferate.
Moreover, in a Macedonic empire nothing could prevent a Greek-speaking and extremely cultured Hebrew merchant (an affluent citizen, perhaps a supplier of the army) from finally inventing Christianism, it being understood that Jesus’s line of thought (which was also St.Peter’s and St.James’s, for the little we know about it) lost and Paul’s won.
Later, a Christian Greek empire existed and lasted 1200 years; why does Western culture always forget the Byzantines? To sum up, I think that the “what ifs” in this case could’t carry us very far from our present reality. All the best Azara
(Jasonxx, how is your shoulder?)
-
rjones2818
- Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 10:26 am
The question on this probably comes down to what would a line from Alexander be like? Would they have acted in Macedonian style like the Successors or would they have been much different (and can we get a hint from how Alexander acted as opposed to what traditional Macedonians though was correct)? I happen to like one of the ideas in Melissa Scott's "A Choice of Destinies" (a what if Alexander turned away from India and went West instead) where Christianity does rise (in several sects) and one of the ways to refer to belief was 'the many faces of God.'azara wrote:Hi, all.
I don’t see many differences between what happened and what could have happened as far as Christianity is concerned.
After all, in the second century b.C. the Jews had already rebelled against the Seleucids, who were a Macedonic empire and not always tolerant in religious matters; it was then that prophets and Messiahs began to proliferate.
Moreover, in a Macedonic empire nothing could prevent a Greek-speaking and extremely cultured Hebrew merchant (an affluent citizen, perhaps a supplier of the army) from finally inventing Christianism, it being understood that Jesus’s line of thought (which was also St.Peter’s and St.James’s, for the little we know about it) lost and Paul’s won.
Later, a Christian Greek empire existed and lasted 1200 years; why does Western culture always forget the Byzantines? To sum up, I think that the “what ifs” in this case could’t carry us very far from our present reality. All the best Azara
(Jasonxx, how is your shoulder?)
-
athenas owl
- Hetairos (companion)
- Posts: 401
- Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:07 am
- Location: US
Azara, I agree and I did not forget the Eastern Empire. However, would the Eastern Empire have existed in the form we know it as had not the Romans first conquered the region? The empire centered at Constantinople was founded by the Romans. If the Romans had already been conquered by ATG, a whole other history would have happened. The Parthians might have reconquered Asia Minor, or a successful dynasty of ATG's own making might have continued. If that had been the case the Seleucids would not have been as such. If ATG's tolerant rule had continued through his dynasty, the rebellions might not have happened at all, at least in the form we know them.
Would the ferment that led the Messianic groups in Palestin not been as critical had not the Romans, after the Greek/Macedonian dynasties fell, continued to the extent? Certainly some messianic figure may have arisen, and some religion formed.
However, I was thinking more of the west. After the fall of the empire (apply your own theory here as to when that happened), the structure of administration that moved from Roman governemnt to church government as it did.
Would the ferment that led the Messianic groups in Palestin not been as critical had not the Romans, after the Greek/Macedonian dynasties fell, continued to the extent? Certainly some messianic figure may have arisen, and some religion formed.
However, I was thinking more of the west. After the fall of the empire (apply your own theory here as to when that happened), the structure of administration that moved from Roman governemnt to church government as it did.
Athenas owl wrote:
Well, the Romans were extremely tolerant in religious matters, but they demanded obedience, at least in a formal and ceremonial way, to the cult of the Emperor, who symbolized the unity of the state. Alexander was just introducing that cult and was perfectly aware that without it, in his times, no Empire could survive; it is interesting to wonder how he would have reacted to the refusal of that cult in the name of a jealous and exclusive God who couldn't inhabit the Pantheon with the numberless gods of the Empire. This is why I think the history of the world wouldn't have changed dramatically; Alexander had already brought about a dramatic turn in history, in which the concept of a universal Empire and Christianity are inscribed. All the best AzaraIf the Romans had already been conquered by ATG, a whole other history would have happened. The Parthians might have reconquered Asia Minor, or a successful dynasty of ATG's own making might have continued. If that had been the case the Seleucids would not have been as such. If ATG's tolerant rule had continued through his dynasty, the rebellions might not have happened at all, at least in the form we know them.
Hello,
Jasonxxx, said,
Azara said,
Best regards,
Dean
Jasonxxx, said,
I have pretty the same opinion Christianity was a religion born out of great oppression. Although in the case of Christianity it is more to do with the intolerance of the Jews than the Romans that proved the catalyst. Pilate is more of a man with an open mind- seeking answers and certainly not desperate to quash. Alexander much as Cyrus wanted to keep the civilian population happy-and perhaps Cyrus more so than Alexander towards the Jewish people.(if Alexander ever did come to meet the Jews)If Alexander and the Macedonian Empire was instead of The Roamn Empire. Its pretty certain that Christianity wouldnt have started.
Azara said,
The Christians who were thrown to the lions may not have agreed with you.Well, the Romans were extremely tolerant in religious matters, but they demanded obedience, at least in a formal and ceremonial way, to the cult of the Emperor, who symbolized the unity of the state.
Best regards,
Dean
carpe diem
-
marcus
- Somatophylax
- Posts: 4871
- Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
- Location: Nottingham, England
- Has thanked: 45 times
- Been thanked: 3 times
Well, maybe not; but the Romans didn't generally have a problem with other religions. The problem with Christianity was that they refused to worship the Emperor, rather than that the Romans had any particular beef with what they were about - they were therefore considered to be subversive. Had the Christians permitted emperor-worship, there was much less chance that they would be served raw, or fricassed on the streets of Rome.dean wrote:The Christians who were thrown to the lions may not have agreed with you.Azara wrote:Well, the Romans were extremely tolerant in religious matters, but they demanded obedience, at least in a formal and ceremonial way, to the cult of the Emperor, who symbolized the unity of the state.
ATB
-
jasonxx
Romes Anti Christian stuff?
I Really where did it begin. In Palestine I wopuld say the Romans had disidence ever where as all over the Empire and dealt with it in the same brutal manners. I guess with the Romans its the old saying while in Rome you do as the Romans do nad as the world was basically Roman you did as you were told. Roman brutality didnt just refer to its conquered it refered to there own . Watching a programe on decimation shows that point.
In the historical text I wonder if the hatred towards the Christians more or less started with Neros Burning of Rome or who ever planned it. Wether it be Jews Muslims Macedonians. Who ever got the blame for that wopuld be in for some stick.
The Jews as with any unhappy conquered would be looking for a leader warrior to drive out the Romans. The Bactrians had Spitamenese with Alexander.
To me Jesus and his boys were laterday Demosthenese Yet Christainity is Alexandrian by the back door as with most religions they are all selective and exclusive and try for world domination of there own particular sects with a different angle or Message. How can any one argue against a mouthpiece talkining peace and harmony amongst men.
All this christainity stuff becomes quite significant. I went to watch my sone nativity play and heard all the songs. About peace loving and how gods only son came to save the world. I look round and say to myself well he needs to come and try again as he didnt do a good job the first time.
Following the performance my 7 year old son came home and started asking about Alexander. I said it would be better to try nad learn about the basics of what Christianity is supposed to mean. I know I believe Alexander to be near god. But I wont indoctrinate anyone with my beliefs even my son. Its for everyone to find there own beliefs and heroes.
kenny
.
I Really where did it begin. In Palestine I wopuld say the Romans had disidence ever where as all over the Empire and dealt with it in the same brutal manners. I guess with the Romans its the old saying while in Rome you do as the Romans do nad as the world was basically Roman you did as you were told. Roman brutality didnt just refer to its conquered it refered to there own . Watching a programe on decimation shows that point.
In the historical text I wonder if the hatred towards the Christians more or less started with Neros Burning of Rome or who ever planned it. Wether it be Jews Muslims Macedonians. Who ever got the blame for that wopuld be in for some stick.
The Jews as with any unhappy conquered would be looking for a leader warrior to drive out the Romans. The Bactrians had Spitamenese with Alexander.
To me Jesus and his boys were laterday Demosthenese Yet Christainity is Alexandrian by the back door as with most religions they are all selective and exclusive and try for world domination of there own particular sects with a different angle or Message. How can any one argue against a mouthpiece talkining peace and harmony amongst men.
All this christainity stuff becomes quite significant. I went to watch my sone nativity play and heard all the songs. About peace loving and how gods only son came to save the world. I look round and say to myself well he needs to come and try again as he didnt do a good job the first time.
Following the performance my 7 year old son came home and started asking about Alexander. I said it would be better to try nad learn about the basics of what Christianity is supposed to mean. I know I believe Alexander to be near god. But I wont indoctrinate anyone with my beliefs even my son. Its for everyone to find there own beliefs and heroes.
kenny
.
-
marcus
- Somatophylax
- Posts: 4871
- Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
- Location: Nottingham, England
- Has thanked: 45 times
- Been thanked: 3 times
Well, by the time of Nero's reign, Christianity was still very new to Rome, but it is true that they were already considered to be dissident and subversive.jasonxx wrote:In the historical text I wonder if the hatred towards the Christians more or less started with Neros Burning of Rome or who ever planned it. Wether it be Jews Muslims Macedonians. Who ever got the blame for that wopuld be in for some stick.
Whether or not Nero was responsible for the fire (which, personally, I don't believe he was), the Christians were blamed - very useful to have a scapegoat, especially when you want to "cure" this strange little sect of its subversive refusal to worship the emperor.
Rather like the Nazis' use of the Communists as scapegoats after the burning of the Reichstag.
ATB