I love Alternate History and What If discussions - but only if the questions are intelligently put. No offense to anyone, but most of the What If - threads on this forum are anything but! The questions are far too broadly stated, the premises illogical ... I'm sure I'm not the only one bored by the ever-repeating 'What if Germany had won WWII, won WWI...' etc. threads.

Such questions don't go back to primal causes, that is, the question is open, how Germany won in the first place; also, that kind of question is so wide open - if Germany had won WWII the whole world would have changed. If you want to answer that kind of question, just go write a book... as if there weren't enough already!

So, what I'm interested in is identifying pivotal moments in history where decisive events could have realistically gone in another direction and discussing where they might have led.
An example: Harry Turtledove based a whole series of books (starting with 'How Few Remain' IIRC) on one simple premise: a Confederate dispatch rider, who in real life (very stupidly, BTW) got captured with battle plans before a decisive battle, got through unmolested - and so the Confederates won that battle.

Please accept these rules for the thread and let's discuss:

1.) Premises must be realistic - based either on a single random event or a decision, that could just as easily have gone another way

2.) Give a short description of the circumstances of the real life event/decision and how you think it could have gone differently.

I'd like this thread to focus on finding such moments more than pages and pages of discussion over any one event - so feel free to open new questions at any time!

I'll start out with an example that isn't too obscure - may be old hat to many here - but it's a good example of what I mean:

In the Battle for England in WWII the German Luftwaffe started out by bombing radar stations and airfields, which came close to crippling the English air defence. After a British bombing raid on Berlin, however, Hitler made the decision to divert most of the bombing resources to attack English cities, especially London (the famous 'Blitz').
What if... Hitler had instead listened to his General Staff and let the attacks against the British air defence continue unabated?
Could Germany then have won the air battle and gained air superiority? And what then..?

My personal belief is that yes, the air battle would almost certainly have been won that way. With air superiority, the British fleet could have been held at bay and a cross-channel invasion attempted. Would Hitler have done so, with possibly inadequate naval resources? Would the invasion have been successful? What would have resulted...?

And please don't forget to pose new questions.. this is just supposed to get the ball rolling....:D

Perhaps these (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=94802) threads (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=129689) may (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=183372) be of use to you. This (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=225910) is the current one. We've thrown around a lot of ideas in there, meant primarily as pre-NES discussions. Sometimes we can actually come up with good ones too.

RE: the scenario in the OP. Securing control of the skies over London was definitely possible for the Luftwaffe due to sheer numbers. Despite not originally being trained for an air superiority and strategic bombing campaign far from their bases (their mission was initially defined as close air support and air superiority), they did reasonably well against a huge series of disadvantages. However, the key problem with attempting to use the Luftwaffe as the primary counter to the Royal Navy is that airplanes don't win wars. Following a campaign of the magnitude of that which was fought in OTL, even if they won, the Luftwaffe would be so depleted as to be unable to patrol the Channel and North Sea in sufficient numbers to prevent Royal Navy craft from destroying the landers (ramshackle things that they were), and even assuming that the forces earmarked for Sealion even get to their landing sites in Britain, they will then have to deal with supply issues, because maintaining control over the Channel doesn't just end when German troops hit the beaches, it's a constant struggle to keep the waterways open to allow fresh supplies to be brought in. Never mind, of course, that these Germans didn't have anything like the mulberry harbors to bring in supplies on a large scale, so they'd have to rely on capturing ports, which might not be done for some time. Then of course there is the resistance of the British Army, which had a trained core that had seen the elephant on the Continent in May 1940 and which served to boost the combat capabilities of their civilian volunteer comrades. Said British Army would not simply roll over and die. So, anyway, securing control of the air might be possible, but landing in the UK? Not going to work.

PoD: the wind turns at the 468 naval Battle of Carthago and the Vandal fireships are unable to destroy the Roman navy. Roman troops land in Africa and recapture it for the Western Empire. I'd be interested in hearing what you guys think of the possibilities for a surviving rump Western Roman state past the 470s. Specifically, the effects on Italy of avoiding the Gothic Wars, and what the Eastern Roman Empire will do with its Ostrogoths in the 480s when Theodoric starts to make trouble. Long-term stuff would be cool too.

My favorite Alternate scenario , is what if Alexander lived another 20 years ? If we suppose Rome never rices , then there is still the issue of Nomadic invasions .... I bet the Hellenistic empires that will come after his death , after civil wars between them , will be severely weakened , far before Rome's fall.

An important question to consider here is, how much does Alexander manage to achieve before dying? I mean both in the terms of administrative reforms and whatnot and in the terms of conquering additional territories, as he apparently planned in OTL.

I don't think there is any reason for Rome not to rise, though; it had way too much going for it already, and by the times of Alexander it was already a significant regional power in Central Italy. The only way to thwart it is to raze it - even just conquering it won't be enough, because when the Alexandrine Empire inevitably collapses Rome will either be able to reclaim its independence by itself or will become a good power base for one of the diadochi.

As for the nomads, I don't think they are such a big threat early on; the Parthians are probably still going to conquer Persia, but a Hellenised Mesopotamia (which is one likely result of Alexander's longer life and reign) would already be far from assured. Perhaps the Seleucids (or whoever takes the niche) will be a more viable power in this timeline.

An important question to consider here is, how much does Alexander manage to achieve before dying? I mean both in the terms of administrative reforms and whatnot and in the terms of conquering additional territories, as he apparently planned in OTL.
Yeah, what exactly did he have in mind when he told Nearkhos to conquer Arabia? And Qarthadast - the target of the Kilikian fleet under...Polyperkhon and Krateros, I think - probably is unstable enough right now to fall if it's hit hard enough. Agathokles, after all, was able to beat them up significantly in Sicily and Africa, and all he could rely on was the resources of Syrakousai.
because when the Alexandrine Empire inevitably collapses Rome [...] will become a good power base for one of the diadochi.
This....is an incredibly cool idea.
As for the nomads, I don't think they are such a big threat early on; the Parthians are probably still going to conquer Persia, but a Hellenised Mesopotamia (which is one likely result of Alexander's longer life and reign) would already be far from assured. Perhaps the Seleucids (or whoever takes the niche) will be a more viable power in this timeline.
What about Baktria? They'll probably have a stronger Hellenic population base to recruit from, and may be able to resist the Saka Rauka. Thus their presence in India will likely be weakened conversely. (I agree with the assessment of Parthia, though, especially if they can get another Mithridates.)

I realize it depends a good deal on the reforms Alexandros was planning, but what do you think Anatolia will look like? Demographically, I mean; would the stronger Hellenic presence allow better control by the Seleukids/whatever epigonos gets Syria? I'm not sure I can see Pontos forming. As for Hellas itself, I can see a stronger Makedonian control of at least the central territories, with a series of symmakheia in the Peloponnesos. Makedonia will probably be able to carve out some stuff on the eastern Aigion shore.

Thanks for the links, Dachspmg! I hadn't ever browsed the NES threads before, looks like I've been missing something...

Regarding the Battle of Britain, I've been doing some reading, prompted by my own question, and I think I have to go along with you: Germany could have won the air battle, but couldn't have invaded successfully anyway.
I hadn't thought about the Mulberry Harbor aspect - you're quite right, even a successfull landing wouldn't have been enough, they'd never have been able to resupply.
So, a different decision on bombing priorities would not have had any great historical impact...

Regarding the wind shift and the Vandal fleet: this is exactly the kind of decision point I'm looking for - a small change with big results! I don't know enough about this episode to discuss it, but I'll go do some Wiki'ing... as I said, just the sort of food for thought that interests me!

Now, the Alexander scenario... sorry, but this is just what I mean about vague premises. Where is the decision point that changes history: HOW or WHY does Alexander live instead of dying...?
Actually, I can partially answer my own question here: he died in Babylon after a banquet, probably of alcohol poisoning ... and it's been theorised he drank so immoderately because of the recent death of his friend (and possibly lover) Hephaistion (IIRC). I don't remember how he died.. let's assume he fell off his horse and randomly broke his neck... where he could just as well have only been bruised.
So, a proper question according to my rules :D would be: what if Hephaistion hadn't broken his neck falling off his horse? Just an example....

Remember, I'm looking for decision points ... on the line of: "For want of a nail, the kingdom was lost...."

this is just what I mean about vague premises. Where is the decision point that changes history: HOW or WHY does Alexander live instead of dying...?
Actually, I can partially answer my own question here: he died in Babylon after a banquet, probably of alcohol poisoning ... and it's been theorised he drank so immoderately because of the recent death of his friend (and possibly lover) Hephaistion (IIRC). I don't remember how he died.. let's assume he fell off his horse and randomly broke his neck... where he could just as well have only been bruised.
So, a proper question according to my rules would be: what if Hephaistion hadn't broken his neck falling off his horse? Just an example....


Well you partially answer your own question so i won't bother .:)

Or maybe i will.

Your primal concern is that people propose Alternate history questions without proposing how one may reach that result and what that How may effect it self the subsequent events.

In this case how Alexander does not die is not important due to the possible reasons he had died. Alcohol , Disease or Poison. (And not a battle his army was completely defeated) . In the last case let's say he asked his bodyguard to drink from his cup so he would get suspicious. In the other occasions the how is answered by luck or in case of Alcohol , Alexander deciding to limit it's use. The how , in this case is not very important.

As for What if scenarios that have to do with decisions , well i am sorry for not offering such scenario

What about this scenario ? The Athenians decide to not do the Sicelian campaign due to , the unlikely success rate of it. How would that effect their antagonism with Sparta ?

I believe this might meet the requirements for this thread. During the early days of the American Revolution, George Washington had suffered several defeats while Horatio Gates was considered a hero after Saratoga. Congress came very close to replacing Washington as commander and chief with Gates. What if this had actually happened and Gates was the commander of the whole army when he ran like a scladed dog at the battle of Camden?

Thanks for the links, Dachspmg! I hadn't ever browsed the NES threads before, looks like I've been missing something...
No problem. We've had a lot of alternate history threads and we're always happy to get new and fresh discussion.
Regarding the Battle of Britain, I've been doing some reading, prompted by my own question, and I think I have to go along with you: Germany could have won the air battle, but couldn't have invaded successfully anyway.
I hadn't thought about the Mulberry Harbor aspect - you're quite right, even a successfull landing wouldn't have been enough, they'd never have been able to resupply.
So, a different decision on bombing priorities would not have had any great historical impact...
Oh, I'm not saying that at all. In fact, an unsuccessful Nazi landing could have fairly important impacts. It kinda depends a good deal on Hitler's (somewhat unbalanced) psyche, and whether such a defeat would make him want to concentrate more or less on Britain. He might go after the USSR earlier, with the attendant consequences for good or ill (on which I would be somewhat unclear), or he might hold off on that.
Regarding the wind shift and the Vandal fleet: this is exactly the kind of decision point I'm looking for - a small change with big results! I don't know enough about this episode to discuss it, but I'll go do some Wiki'ing... as I said, just the sort of food for thought that interests me!
Given Wiki's abysmal record on the Later Roman Empire (save perhaps for the excellent article on the Later Roman Army), I don't even think that the Battle of Carthago - sometimes called the Battle of Cape Bon - even has its own article. Look in the article on Basiliscus, that probably has a blurb.
I don't remember how he died.. let's assume he fell off his horse and randomly broke his neck... where he could just as well have only been bruised.
So, a proper question according to my rules :D would be: what if Hephaistion hadn't broken his neck falling off his horse? Just an example....
I was under the impression Hephaistion was either poisoned or that he died of typhoid. Still, eliminating that bug might not be particularly diffficult. And the net effect is the same as what scy12 mentioned.
What about this scenario ? The Athenians decide to not do the Sicelian campaign due to , the unlikely success rate of it. How would that effect their antagonism with Sparta ?
Well, since they were at that point in the middle of Nikias' 'bad peace', having just come off of Alkibiades' much more promising Argos scheme, the war is likely to recommence anyway. The only question is where. Sparta doesn't really have the capability to prevent the Athenians from attempting to reverse the loss of her colonies in the north, especially with the death of Brasidas; they still can, however, make a lot of trouble for Athens on the ground in central Greece. So much we already know. I think that the Athenians, if they don't go after Sicily, have most of the advantages. And the Spartans really don't have the kind of naval power base to be able to realistically contest the Athenians, because said Athenians would not have lost so much in Sicily. In the short term, Sparta cannot, even with a war, do much of anything to prevent Athenian reconquest of her Empire. Medium- and long-term effects?...without the disastrous Athenian defeats of 413-411, they will be in a much better position vis-a-vis the Persians. But their political one will suck because they'll have most of the Hellenic city states against them. Neither side can really win unless the other does something stupid. Athens could theoretically spark a helot revolt from Pylos but it will be difficult and the Spartans could stop it with enough advance warning. Said helot revolt would seriously weaken Sparta as a major force until such a time as another Kleomenes comes around to reform it.

That was kinda disjointed. Sorry.

As to Gates, if he was put in command he would either rapidly lose said command due to his own failures, or he would just bring down the entire American cause in flames.

I would like to continue my American Rev. scenario. After the disaster at Camden, the revolution collapses. The English, being what they are, try to deal with the conspirators as leniently as possible. There is much sentiment in England that the whole mess was Parliament’s fault in the first place. Gates is hanged as an example. The British assume that nobody on either side likes him very much and there is little chance that he will be considered a martyr. John Hancock is hanged as the lead conspirator. Also the crown has been after him for many years for smuggling. He is looked upon by many Americans as a pampered rich man so there is little worry that he will be a martyr. Thomas Jefferson goes to prison. These are the harshest sentences that are handed down. George Washington receives a short prison sentence. His many years of military service to the crown are not forgotten. He loses most of his wealth, but retains Mt. Vernon. He eventually returns home to be an old and very tired gentleman farmer. John Adams receives a light prison sentence. He is remembered for services to the crown after the Boston Massacre. Sam Adams is pretty much ignored. He is old and few people listen to him anymore. Besides, why give him any publicity. Franklin receives a slap on the wrist. He is too well known and liked on both sides of the Atlantic to risk any serious punishment. Nathanial Greene hides out in the wilderness with a small force, vowing to fight on.

In 1834 slavery is abolished in the British Empire. The southern plantation owners call for a third Continental Congress in Richmond. Most colonies attend, but the New England colonies pull out when they see the direction that this is going. They are not interested in supporting the continuation of slavery.
TO BE CONTINUED

Oh, I'm not saying that at all. In fact, an unsuccessful Nazi landing could have fairly important impacts. It kinda depends a good deal on Hitler's (somewhat unbalanced) psyche, and whether such a defeat would make him want to concentrate more or less on Britain. He might go after the USSR earlier, with the attendant consequences for good or ill (on which I would be somewhat unclear), or he might hold off on that.


More important than Hitlers feelings would be the rest of germany - suddenly Hitler isn't infalliable any more. I'd bet on more resistence by the military hierarchy, and they might try a few more coups if he goes for Russia.

More important than Hitlers feelings would be the rest of germany - suddenly Hitler isn't infalliable any more. I'd bet on more resistence by the military hierarchy, and they might try a few more coups if he goes for Russia.
I don't know about that quite yet - certainly the military failed to launch any sort of possibly effective coup attempt until long after it was obvious to all involved that the Reich was not merely halted, but doomed. It's possible, but I can't see the old-style Junker generals or the remainder of the Establishment attempting to take Hitler out yet before the Russians are rolling over the eastern frontier.

If France had won the War of Spanish Sucession? Just throwing that out.

What if the Lusitania had'nt been sunk? I have a game based around this, (Enigma: Rising Tide) but always thought it was a bit unrealistic.

I suspect that had Lusitania not been sunk then another liner probably would have been sooner or later with similar results. It wasn't until August that the Kaiser put any restrictions on submarine warfare (by which time another liner containing Americans had been sunk) anyway.

If France had won the War of Spanish Sucession? Just throwing that out.
As per the OP, I think you should give a specific event at which they did better. You mean, winning Blenheim, or something?

(A TL has been written by a person who has posted in this very thread on the possibility of France winning that particular war, although the divergence is probably not one that people would expect.)

As per the OP, I think you should give a specific event at which they did better. You mean, winning Blenheim, or something?

(A TL has been written by a person who has posted in this very thread on the possibility of France winning that particular war, although the divergence is probably not one that people would expect.)

Yeah, I guess a more specific event was necessary. But what is the TL? do you have a link?

If France had won the War of Spanish Sucession? Just throwing that out.

Some people think they did. After all, the Bourbons did keep most of the Spanish possessions, at the price of not uniting the two crowns, which they weren't going to anyway. I consider it pretty much a draw, with the French making a good showing in the last five years of the war, especially after Marlborough was recalled.

What if the Lusitania had'nt been sunk?Oddly enough, the sinking of the Lusitania didn't cause a public uproar until some time later, when the U.S. government needed a case to join the war. I agree with privatehudson: if not the Lusitania, it would be another ship.

I had a discussion a while ago about the Afghanistan mission, where it went wrong and how it could have been handled differently. My counterpoint said that NATO should have simply bombed the Taliban and left. For the longest time the logic of the opinion confounded me, but today I think I realize what he meant: the main reason the Taliban have returned to Afghanistan is because of the Western presence; if we hadn't put troops on the ground the country would have been left alone.

What do you think?

Yeah, I guess a more specific event was necessary. But what is the TL? do you have a link?
It's in the third Alternate History Thread on the NES subforum; don't have a link off the top of my head.
Some people think they did. After all, the Bourbons did keep most of the Spanish possessions, at the price of not uniting the two crowns, which they weren't going to anyway. I consider it pretty much a draw, with the French making a good showing in the last five years of the war, especially after Marlborough was recalled.
This is very true. Also to be considered is that Louis wasn't fundamentally trying to conquer all of Europe or anything. I think that the most France could have gotten out of the War of the Spanish Succession would be to either keep the Spanish Netherlands under Spain or under France. Annexations in Germany weren't on Louis' wish list; the attack in Bavaria was largely to force the Habsburgs out of the war. A better war for Louis to 'win' is the War of the Grand Alliance.

1.) Premises must be realistic - based either on a single random event or a decision, that could just as easily have gone another way

2.) Give a short description of the circumstances of the real life event/decision and how you think it could have gone differently.



WI: Alexander doesn't contract malaria (the going theory of his early death) and survives to a normal lifespan.

Outcome:

If Alexander survives to old age, it is likely that he would be spending most of the rest of his life consolidating the empire he has conquered and maintaining the peace. The descriptions of him planning the conquest of Arabia, Rome, and Carthage are fanciful speculations from authors writing hundreds of years after the fact, and have little historical validity. Even if Alexander planned any of these campaigns, it is unlikely he would've been able to carry them out. He had to end his conquest of India after his troops mutinied, so at the very least, he'd have to wait several years before attempting any further campaigns.

Another problem plauging the new empire was cohesion between the numerous ethnic groups. Alexander planned to mix the cultures of the Near East and the Greek by introducing certain customs to his Greek and Macedonian comrades. In nearly all cases, these were met with resistance and outrage. One custom, called proskynesis, involved the prostration and kissing of a subject to the king, an act considered by Greeks contemptible and fitting only for worship of the gods. Alexander also married off many of his soldiers to Persian women, and himself married a Bactrian princess, Roxane, in his effort to create a kind of ethnic homogeneity. It would've surely taken years, possibly his entire reign, for these measures to take hold and only after much resistance from both the Greeks and the Persians, and Hellenism would have a far more "Eastern" flavor than it did in the Hellenistic Age.

As far as foreign intervention is concerned, I suspect that much of Alexander's later years would be spent more defending his domain than conquering other lands. The Mauryan Empire would present his first challenge, which would likely end in a compromise, as in real history. The Parthians would probably consume a great amount of resources, and I suspect that with a unified empire, they would not be able to carve out their empire as in real life. The Romans and Carthaginians would likely be left to their own devices, as the empire would be too busy defending itself than getting involved in foreign adventures. Once Rome defeats Carthage, and I think that is inevitable, the combined pressures from the East and West would likely cause a collapse of the Macedonian Empire around 100 BC.

The descriptions of him planning the conquest of Arabia, Rome, and Carthage are fanciful speculations from authors writing hundreds of years after the fact, and have little historical validity.
Well, Krateros used the fleet he was building in Kilikia for the Qarthadast campaign to help crush the Hellenic revolt of the Lamian War. IIRC it was this navy that formed the basis of the Successor navies that clashed around Salamis-in-Kypros and in the Aigion; it was certainly sizable enough. There isn't much data on Nearkhos' similar expedition to conquer Arabia (and that one I have doubts about).
Even if Alexander planned any of these campaigns, it is unlikely he would've been able to carry them out.
He didn't plan to do it himself; Krateros was the man for the Qarthadast job as mentioned, with Polyperkhon as his number two. And at this point, Qarthadast was incredibly weak. The Syrakousans were able to actually land in Africa and conduct campaigns before the conclusion of the Agathoklean wars. Qarthadast's navy was weak, and their army didn't do terribly well either. While the establishment of a viable and long-lasting Hellenistic hegemony over Qarthadast is somewhat unlikely, Krateros had the resources and the skill to utterly trash them, far worse than anyone else did. And possibly conquer them.
He had to end his conquest of India after his troops mutinied, so at the very least, he'd have to wait several years before attempting any further campaigns.
He had already waited several years by the time he died. Hence why expeditions were viable. Also: the Makedonian army he brought with him to India wasn't by any means the only manpower in the Empire available or even the only trained Makedonian army available. I mean, honestly. There is not a significant manpower shortage in the Alexandrine Empire if said Empire has more than enough Makedonian soldiers to fight several vast wars over the course of the next two decades with virtually no pausing and large numbers of casualties.
Another problem plauging the new empire was cohesion between the numerous ethnic groups. Alexander planned to mix the cultures of the Near East and the Greek by introducing certain customs to his Greek and Macedonian comrades. In nearly all cases, these were met with resistance and outrage. One custom, called proskynesis, involved the prostration and kissing of a subject to the king, an act considered by Greeks contemptible and fitting only for worship of the gods. Alexander also married off many of his soldiers to Persian women, and himself married a Bactrian princess, Roxane, in his effort to create a kind of ethnic homogeneity. It would've surely taken years, possibly his entire reign, for these measures to take hold and only after much resistance from both the Greeks and the Persians, and Hellenism would have a far more "Eastern" flavor than it did in the Hellenistic Age.
Okay...but with the "Eastern" flavor would also come probably a longer-lasting cultural synthesis. Which when you consider the original longevity of Hellenistic culture in the Middle East, is pretty awesome. Frankly, I don't see Alexander's successors - if the Empire holds together - retaining these policies anyway.
As far as foreign intervention is concerned, I suspect that much of Alexander's later years would be spent more defending his domain than conquering other lands. The Mauryan Empire would present his first challenge, which would likely end in a compromise, as in real history.
Alexandros >>>>> Seleukos. :p Besides, Seleukos made that compromise because he had better thing to do back west with the rest of the Successors. Alexandros, with far fewer if any such problems, will be less inclined to be bought off with a bunch of shiny elephant toys, especially when he already has his own. While any further conquest in India ranges from highly unlikely to impossible for Alexandros, I don't think that he personally would lose the Indos. And after that, hell, the Hellenic satrapies like Baktria will be plenty powerful with the extra Hellenic settlement.
The Parthians would probably consume a great amount of resources, and I suspect that with a unified empire, they would not be able to carve out their empire as in real life.
Yeah, but the Pahlava come after Alexandros' death. Other than that, yeah, they'd probably carve out their empire.
The Romans and Carthaginians would likely be left to their own devices, as the empire would be too busy defending itself than getting involved in foreign adventures.
Romans, maybe. If Alexandros' empire fragments earlier - which it ought to - then one of the Successors will probably go off on a fun conquering spree and may seize Rome as his power base. Kind of like Pyrrhos but without the other stuff to deal with, and hopefully without the ADHD as well. Since an integral part of any Hellenistic empire would be control of, well, Hellenes, the Alexandrine Empire will probably want to seize Megala Hellas, which brings them into conflict with Rome, a Rome that had major issues with a renegade Hellenic genial military madman with a misthophoroi army. As for Qarthadast, well, I've already said that they were incredibly weak during a large chunk of this time period. They had major trouble coping with Syrakousai, so the Alexandrine Empire should be able to trash them. I can see a Keltiberian/Qarthadastim successor state in southern Iberia arising if the Hellenes take the Qarthadastim metropoly, and of course whatever successor state to the Alexandrine Empire that arises in North Africa will be highly Semitic-influenced.
the combined pressures from the East and West would likely cause a collapse of the Macedonian Empire around 100 BC.
That's an awfully long lifespan. It should last for far less time than that. ;)

Seems like you said a lot of stuff that was already in this here thread, except for the expeditions business, about which I have serious doubts. The nice thing about Alexandros' 'later years' is that he doesn't have any external threats of any significance, and thus can easily afford to go on another conquest trip. The viability of controlling such territory over a long period of time is low, but when the Alexandrine Empire breaks up, places like Qarthadast (and Rome, if it is conquered) will probably become Successor Kingdoms a la Egypt of the Ptolemaioi, Seleukid Syria, and Antigonid Makedonia in OTL. Essentially, Alexandros' main impact, in keeping his eponymous empire together, would be to prevent the Hellenes from infighting for just a little while longer and thus improve Hellenistic cultural power throughout the Middle East and Mediterranean via conquest. But nobody will disagree about a breakup.

I'm generally not that great at guessing how things would change as there are too many other factors involved to try and guess the outcome, but there are definitely plenty of events where a crucial decision changes the course of history for a large part of the world and it is interesting to try and take a look at what would change.

For example, in 1853 Commodore Perry arrives in Japan with a list of demands towards the Tokugawa shogunate and gives them several months to respond. What if upon his return in 1854 the Japanese tell Perry to go stick his treaty where the sun don't shine?

The Japanese could hold off foreign intervention for a while longer, as they had the British for some years, but the Europeans were going to get their way at some point. The Shogunate was still rather powerful, but there were plenty of venues for the Europeans to exploit. If they couldn't force the shogun directly, then they could've provoked revolt using the Daimyo who were always willing to go against the Shogun.

The biggest difference would be that Japan probably would not have been independent if the Europeans had to actually provoke revolts to trade with it. France or Britain would have been more than happy to rule over Japan with the Shogun gone and the emperor still being a puppet.

The Russians were angling to 'open' Japan within the next few years so my bets on them doing that, claiming Ezo (which had few Japanese at the time) and making a firmly subordinate Japan.
As to someone directly ruling it: was a bit far for the French and the British weren't really interested in gaining a troublesome new territory at that time.

The Russians were angling to 'open' Japan within the next few years so my bets on them doing that, claiming Ezo (which had few Japanese at the time) and making a firmly subordinate Japan.
As to someone directly ruling it: was a bit far for the French and the British weren't really interested in gaining a troublesome new territory at that time.

Distance didn't stop the French and British from having massive colonial systems set up in Vietnam and India, I don't see how Japan would be different if the Europeans could play their hand right.

Re Alexander: The most important difference of his having lived longer would seem to me to have been his establishing an heir and successor, possibly totally eliminating the infighting between his de facto successors (his former generals).
Alexander seems to have inspired great personal loyalty among both his men and his generals - if he had had time enough to transfer that loyalty to his son, who knows how long the Macedonian empire might have gone on...?

Re Japan: coincidentally, I just finished rereading Clavell's Gai-Jin yesterday so I'm up on the circumstances..
I very much doubt whether either Russia, the Europeans or Americans could have subjugated Japan. The great powers were all preoccupied by looming problems elsewhere (heading for the Civil War in the US, clash between France and Prussia coming, Sepoy Mutiny in India), Japan was far from any of their power bases and the fanatically xenophobic and warlike Japanese would hardly have been overcome by any small-scale invasion on a shoestring, even if they didn't have modern weapons yet. I don't think the situation was comparable with India either, where different ethnicities and religious groups could be played off one against the other - the Japanese had political infighting, but would certainly have united against an invader, especially the hated and despised gai jin!
OTOH, once they realised how powerful the European/American weapons were, it was inevitable that they saw the necessity of arming themselves the same way, first to preserve their independence and later to expand their influence, leading to Tsushima and then China and Pearl Harbor.
Given the Japanese mentality of the time, I don't see how things could have gone any other way...

Distance didn't stop the French and British from having massive colonial systems set up in Vietnam and India, I don't see how Japan would be different if the Europeans could play their hand right.

India is closer and took two centuries to occur and relied on political conditions that were absent from Japan, Vietnam is several decades in the future and less populated and developed than Japan, and both were closer to Europe.

Re Alexander: The most important difference of his having lived longer would seem to me to have been his establishing an heir and successor, possibly totally eliminating the infighting between his de facto successors (his former generals).
Alexander seems to have inspired great personal loyalty among both his men and his generals - if he had had time enough to transfer that loyalty to his son, who knows how long the Macedonian empire might have gone on...?

I've kinda done a bit on Alexander, thought I should post here briefly. One of the interesting features of Alexander's Mecedonia is how little seapower it had. That was changing as he died, the KiliKian fleet has been mentioned and there was a large fleet available in the Arabian Gulf as well. The fleets brought a new dimention to Alexander's reach, and IMHO it would have made a great number of expeditions practical - Alexander had already proven himself master of eating all the odds and reaching places that were impossible to reach.

I have an alternative suggestion related to the succession issues by the way - on his death bed, Alexander is asked who should take over as his successor. Depending on who you believe he says a variety of things, but commonly it is supposed to be 'to the Strongest'. Now, the Greek for 'the Strongest' (Krater'oi, I think) is very similar to Krateros. My supposition starts with Krateros being present when big A died, and hearing this, and claiming the Empire for himself with A's explicit blessing. What would happen then? Given what you say about his generals loyalty, would Krateros be able to hold things together himself if Alexander was seen to have backed his leadership?

I have an alternative suggestion related to the succession issues by the way - on his death bed, Alexander is asked who should take over as his successor. Depending on who you believe he says a variety of things, but commonly it is supposed to be 'to the Strongest'. Now, the Greek for 'the Strongest' (Krater'oi, I think) is very similar to Krateros. My supposition starts with Krateros being present when big A died, and hearing this, and claiming the Empire for himself with A's explicit blessing. What would happen then? Given what you say about his generals loyalty, would Krateros be able to hold things together himself if Alexander was seen to have backed his leadership?
Ah yes, ma boy Krateros. He's an interesting dude, since most historians generally rate his military skill very highly (hell he only lost the battle of the Hellespont - which I use in lieu of a real name since the location of the battle is unknown except for that it was 'near the Hellespont' - because his horse fell on him and he died). If Krateros were in Babylon in the summer of 323 to hear what Alexandros said, he might have been able to enforce the decision through sheer military prowess alone. There were, after all, plenty of generals in the empire who were plain old legitimists, and if Alexandros had named Krateros as the new regent, I think that Eumenes would probably have gone along with him as well as Polyperkhon. On the other hand, Antipatros, who was the original regent of the empire before Alexandros' death, and who was still strategos of Europe, would be mighty pissed. Instead of fighting against the Hellenes in the Lamian War, he may have promised them a symmakhia or even a measure of independence in order to turn against his rivals. Ptolemaios will revolt no matter what because he is Ptolemaios. (:p) Having Eumenes as a supporter will lead Krateros into conflict with Antigonos, which Krateros will probably win, and with Greater Phrygia then under his control I can see him holding the empire together, barring an inconvenient death as happened to him in OTL...except for Hellas and Makedonia themselves, which will be at the very least a tough nut to crack under Antipatros (and later, Kassandros), which Krateros may very well give up on, so long as Antipatros eliminates the Argeades, who could prove an inconvenient check on his power and a rallying point for anti-Kraterian rebels later. Since Antipatros hated the Argeades, and Kassandros loathed them, this probably wouldn't be a sticking point for them to say the least.

Thing is, this empire won't last any longer than Alexandros' would have had he ruled. They will probably support Hellenic leagues against the Antipatrid Makedonian kings (assuming, of course, that the Antipatrid line lasts very long, which going historically it won't) in a manner similar to the Ptolemaioi constantly meddling against the Antigonid Makedonia of OTL. This depends on the Makedonians' ability to establish a viable symmakhia with the Hellenes, which was hard enough to do in OTL. Makedonia may later be absorbed, maybe not. And in the meantime, the Pahlava will be coming in from the north and either they or some other steppe tribe (like Saka Rauka, which would make for a really cool Perso-Saka Empire) will come sweeping through, and that in turn will lead to the rise of a Hellenic Baktrian state (which is similarly cool). And that's not even counting the loss of the Hindu Satrapies to the Mauryans, which is by no means predestined but is certainly likely. (Although Krateros has some skill in campaigning against Hindu opponents. ;)) To sum up, I think that the Kraterids, who would have to deal with more wayward generals than Alexandros would have, would probably be able to reunite the empire and maybe even spread Hellenic culture a bit (Qarthadast is a fun target, as is Megala Hellas) but I can't see them surviving any longer than Alexandros' empire would have and they'd eventually degenerate into successor kingdoms as well. Which is fine with me, cos big single empires make for boring NESes. :p

Now, the Greek for 'the Strongest' (Krater'oi, I think) is very similar to Krateros

Krater'oi, I think) is very similar to Krateros.

I think it is Krateos without the R.

The word State which means Kratos , comes from the ancient Greek word of Kratos that means powerful.

In the aitiatiki ( I am , You are , He is (I think that) ) It would just be Krataios . I don't think there is an R there.

But hey , let's say Krateros is there and he claims that Alexander misspelled the R. However , the scenario would unfold a bit differently than Dachspmg scenario as there would be many that would see Krateros , as a liar . But i guess he could win some on his side. But i really don't know enough about the successors to tell you what would happen later. So Dachspmg , let's say that Krateros claims that Alexander Misspelled his name and fights to seize power , what happens next ?






Ancient Greek

[edit] Alternative spellings

* κρετέω (Aeolic)

[edit] Etymology

From κράτος "power, might"

[edit] Pronunciation

* (Classical) IPA: /kratéɔː/
* (Koine) IPA: /kraˈteo/

[edit] Verb

present κρατέω, future: κρατήσω, aorist: unknown, perfect: unknown, perfect m/p: unknown, aorist passive: unknown

1. I rule, command
2. I conquer, prevail, gain the upper hand

scy12 - thanks for helping out with the translation.

I picked on Krateros because he was traditionally thought to be the most capable of Alexander's successors on the battlefield, and his ability might just have convinced the army to back him. I'd agree that Ptol. is still likely to have broken away, and Antipater was already ruling pretty independently in Macedon even while Alex. was alive. I personally believe that Eumenes, Seleukus and, eventually, Antigonus would have fallen in line, but others may well have still found a way to revolt / break away.

I think it makes for an interesting possible timeline because some of the legitimacy of Alex's succession might have been circumvented, and there might possibly have been time for one of his heirs (Alex IV or Herakles IIRC) to grow to age. Then what would have happened?