I know "What if" threads are generally frowned upon, as they are too debateable, but what if Alexander, if he did not survive into old age, at least was able to get back to Macedon, leave an heir, and then when Alexander dies, take over? What problems would this leave for the fledgling Roman Empire? Would Macedon take today's "Roman Empire" status? etc, etc...


So??? Will this thread get into a good discussion/debate, or shall it be closed?:(

Well... I'm no expert on ancient history, but to my knowledge the main enemy of Alexanders time in the Western Med would have been Carthage and not Rome as Rome was little more than a city state by Alexander's death. That would indicate that he would possibly have ignored Rome himself, but Carthage presents problems. His main two routes were problematical, to cross the sea required a decent navy in order to contest with the Carthaginian one. To cross by land from Egypt would have taken time and been difficult.

I don't think he was the type to just return to macedon and live quietly, there would always have been some new war, some border conflict, some tribe to put down, so given that nature it's hard to imagine Alexander even living long enough to produce a decent heir anyway, he brushed death more than once before he fell.

But this is saying What id he had an heir. He had sat down long enough before...Spent 3 years in Egypt before moving on with his conquests...So I don't think him settling down for at least 3 years would be outta the question...

Originally posted by privatehudson
Well... I'm no expert on ancient history, but to my knowledge the main enemy of Alexanders time in the Western Med would have been Carthage and not Rome as Rome was little more than a city state by Alexander's death.

actually, ROmes possesion already extended out of Latium, and down south round to Capua, er Neopolis, and Rome was well on its way to geting even more land at the time of Alex's death as well

So assuming Alexander had an heir, either he or his heir would probably lock horns with Rome at some point....Probably sooner rather than later, as Alex was restless...Same with his son, most likely...

Originally posted by Xen


actually, ROmes possesion already extended out of Latium, and down south round to Capua, er Neopolis, and Rome was well on its way to geting even more land at the time of Alex's death as well

Ok, so a bit more than city state, but a mere speck of a power in comparison to Alexander's forces, and not much worth bothering with. In comparison to Carthage Rome at that stage wasn't exactly the huge threat it became later. To a man who'd destroyed the Persian empire, battering a small state in Italy would have been easy, if worth the trouble.

Originally posted by Amenhotep7
So assuming Alexander had an heir, either he or his heir would probably lock horns with Rome at some point....Probably sooner rather than later, as Alex was restless...Same with his son, most likely... IIRC, he did leave a heir - a child. His generals eventually deposed of the poor kid...

no he didnt- Alexander never named the child his heir- succession fo the throne was not a automatic thing in the ancient med, there had to be a named successor to the throne- which there was none, as Alexander had not named it

Regardless, the generals put him up first as the next king. Then the regent had him murdered eventually, while the other generals went on to take other pieces of the empire.

I think even if Alexander did name him the official heir, the outcome would be pretty much the same. :rolleyes:

I dont, remember, the generals WANTED the child of Alexander to become the next king- if the chils had been named successor, i think it would have heppend

alexanders child was not named heir because she was with child when he died . the boy was born after his death.

as far as to what if... that empire would of needed strong forces to hold eygpt, greece, persia and up to the indian boarder, that means armies and good generals. the first time alexanders sucessor died in battle or had a child heir the generals most likely would of done exactly what they did following alexanders death--divide it up and fight each other

Ok, so a bit more than city state, but a mere speck of a power in comparison to Alexander's forces, and not much worth bothering with. In comparison to Carthage Rome at that stage wasn't exactly the huge threat it became later. To a man who'd destroyed the Persian empire, battering a small state in Italy would have been easy, if worth the trouble

Doesn't matter what size Rome was, Alexander was returning to prepair for a compaign into the west after resting. Regardless, this would have prevented or sped up / changed the entire aspect of the Punic Wars. With Carthage and Rome allying to stop the Greeks, or Carthage ganging up on poor Republic and dividing it with the Macedonians.

He returned to Babylon to prepare to conquer Arabia, not the Western Mediterranean.

Hmmm, I've read in several books he was planning for the Western Med, oh well.

Whilst I don't doubt that it would have had an affect on the whole issue of the punic wars I do doubt that Rome alone could have stood against Alexanders forces, assuming he would have shown an interest in crushing such a weak enemy. Perhaps united Rome and Carthage could have stood, but I find such an alliance less likely given the history of the two and Carthage's relative security in comparison. As has been stated though, it's far from clear just what Alexander intended to do.

I'd have to agree with Mongoloid Cow. He planned to rule from Babylon, iirc, and his next plan was for Arabia.

Gosh, that would have changed everything.

I recall reading somewhere that Alexander was planning on going north to conquer the Scythians before going west. I could be wrong though.

I doubt he would have gone for the Scythians. Many were quick to make peace with him, and they would have used the same tactics they used against Darius the Great with the same great effect.

IF he conquered Arabia, and Macedon never fell,the spread of Islam across North Africa perhaps would have never happened...:undeicide:

"Alexander hoped that commerce would help tie his empire together. He decided to exploit new commercial possibilities and to make Babylon the center of an enhanced world commerce. Already his warring had created a new demand for iron. His conquest of Persian treasury had put more money into circulation, and his conquests had broken down trade barriers. Already he had stimulated economic activity by building new ports and by founding new cities and seventy military colonies in the conquered territories. Now Alexander began planning for the building of docks along the Euphrates at Babylon and for the clearing and dredging of the Euphrates River to the Persian Gulf. He planned to colonize the eastern shore of the Persian Gulf. And he planned to have Arabia circumnavigated and explored.

Alexander was laying plans to extend his conquests to Sicily and Italy -- to unite more of the world under his rule. But a fortuity intervened. In 323 BCE, at the age of thirty-two, Alexander died -- possibly from malari"

These were the plans for Alexanders "future" goals. I found this info from here: http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch11.htm#st4

has to anyone of you occured that Alexander was not an empire builder - in the sense that he troubled mostly with conquests but not with internal matters of his empire. I read somewhere tha while he was away greece was in financial crisis, inflation - destoyed Greece.. Even if his empire survived he would have to face many problems he left. His commerce system was destorying parts of his empire and led other ones into great prosperity. Such dispariteies would not allow his state to survive.

Alexander has been known to settle down at times. And, if it got that bad, he could hire somebody to make the descisionsa for him. Then he'd come home, have a son, or name him anyway, get old, and die. I wholeheartedly believe that it could have survived. Many Empires were in worse jams than that, and they reemerged unscathed.

@obstructor- has it occured to you that greece wasnt Alexanders to deal with? yes, greece was under defacto military, and political control by controlling the Achean Legue, but economically, and in the city states personal, internal matters, they were indipendent, Alexnader had no buissuness concerning himself with the economy of greece, only that of macedonia, a decidlly differnt affair fromthat of the southern greek states

as for what alexander would have done- SIMPLE- would he have gone after arabia? yes

would he have gone after italy? naturally

would he have gone after carthage?of course

would he, after having at least trying to conqoure these lands, go onwards onto more conquests? almost certainlly

Alexander would have saild to the Americas and conquered the Mesoamericans.:p

Alexander would have saild to the Americas and conquered the Mesoamericans.


I doubt that, but if he had lived long enough, he most likely would of explored further down africa and father north of Europe.

I think he was saying that with tongue in cheeck.

Oh! I guess he was..I really didn't think about his smiley ( :p ). My apologies to Amenhotep. :o ;)

I suspect had the empire managed to survive parts of it would have begun to be abandoned, particularly the very eastern parts. if he was planning a rule from Babylon it seems pretty certain that in time his empire would have become similar to Persia's.
Had he conquered Arabia this supposed 'trade hub' could well have been very successful (considering exotic goods in the southern Arabia).
Had he moved west I expect he would have moved into Europe before the more inaccessable North Africa. On the other hand he may have been interested by the idea of conquering the people with no heads who reputedly lived there.
Either way there would be a lot more places named 'Alexadria'

Originally posted by Amenhotep7
Alexander would have saild to the Americas and conquered the Mesoamericans.:p


i dont think there were any there back then lol

Originally posted by stalin006



i dont think there were any there back then lol

the olmec's were in mexico 1200bc-400ad and the mayans from 2000bc ( their peak didn't start till @400ad )

And humans, the first Amerindians, had been in the Americas for upwards of 12000 years ago...

buit they lacked the sophistication to be considerd anywhere near the development of the classical Central American civilizations of the Maya, and Olmecs and so on ;)

Merely pointing out that there're humans to be conquered in the Americas, long before recorded time... Meso-Americans or not.

Originally posted by Furius
I suspect had the empire managed to survive parts of it would have begun to be abandoned, particularly the very eastern parts. if he was planning a rule from Babylon it seems pretty certain that in time his empire would have become similar to Persia's.

IMO the far eastern parts would have survived quite well - they would have been least affected by any economic policies so were insulated against a possible economic disaster. That and the eastern territories such as Bactria, Sogdiana and India (and if Alexander hadn't all-but wiped them out Gandhara) were also very populated and had great strategic and commercial benefits. The nearer-eastern territories such as Drangiana, Aria and Carmania IMO which would have been largely abandoned.

Only problem with that is that these territories were the first in line in any nomadic sweep out of the Mongolian steppes. Which, historically, they were - the last Greek kingdoms in Bactria were squashed by the incoming Kushans...

XIII, but by that time the Greaco-Bactrian kingdom had split into two parts: Bactria proper and the Eucratid Kingdom in India. The Eucratid kingdom couldn't hold their India together without outside help so it split into 40+ kingdoms, while Bactria proper was weakened by wars with the Seleucid Empire and Parthia. Even still the Kushans couldn't claim any hegemony over these territories for over a century due to local and foreign resistance. Had Bactria had the strength to keep itself together, it could have potentially stopped the Yue-Chi Kushans in their tracks in Sogdiana IMO anyway.

Oh well, just my take on it :D ;)

Perhaps, but with the continued hordes pouring westwards like the Huns, Turks and so on, I doubt it. So far away fr its font, it isn't likely to survive for too long on its own terms i.e. holding on to its Greekness.

Hmm...Holding onto it's culture a problem? Nae...The Greeks imposed much on other cultures...Either that, or they just liked picking on poor Egypt's culture.:(

Bactria keeping its' culture wouldn't have been hard to do - it was a very multicultural kingdom with large infuences of Greek, Macedonian, Iranian, Indian, Sacae and Sogdian. There are still people in Pakistan which still speak ancient Greek and have ancient Greek culture and religion (the Kalash IIRC)

honestlly, while I think where he would have tried to conqoure next immeidiatley after he was done with what ever he was doing in the east s a good question, ther eis no doubt in my mind that ALexander never would have "sat down, and ruled"- that wasnt the kind of man ALexander shows he was- he shows himself as a man of action who was not only compelled to take action, but needed it to go on (who klnows, perhaps Alexander died not because of drink, or ailment, or even the sting of poison, no the reason Alexander died at all because of a little boredom ;))

I heard the man broke down and cried after he saw nothing left to conquer.

And Xen I disagree with you that he would have tried to conquer Arabia. There would have been no reason. It was just desert with a few towns along the coast, and a mass of barbaric bedouins who would've probably just let his troops occupy the country and then continously hassle him afterward. The various other empires in the region before him, from the Babylonians to the Persians, never actually went in and subjugated Arabia, simply because it was a waste of time when there were much better things to worry about. Perhaps Petra, but he maybe already controled that. If Saba was around at the time, it probably would have been the most worthwile piece of land on the peninsula. But between Saba and Babylon was just desert.

its a fact that Alexander wanted to conqoure arabia- it controlled a primary sea trade rout to China, and had a great deal of its own luxury resources, such as perfumes,inscense,oils and so on, all of which promised to make Alexander a ton of dough to finance more wars if captured ;)

aaminion00, Arabia was one of the richest places in the world at that time, especially in modern Yemen and Oman. There was certainly a reson to go into there. Also Oman was at various stages conquered and held by the Achaemenids.

Arabia would have been his prime target, to be sure...Alexander's Empire, if he didn't die and it wasn't divided up by his generals, would have become an economic giant.:eek: Closer Trade with Ethiopia, India, perhaps China, etc.

The fact remains that there were miles of desert between the rich city states and the mere fringes of Alexander's empire. And I don't see why the things Arabia had couldn't be found in Babylon. Plus he could easily have obtained most of this without actually fighting a war. Perhaps just occupy the East Coast. I thought he would've rather continued on in Europe or North Africa or somewhere

If he did conquer Arabia, probably the Eastern and Southern coasts.

No, he would have definately conquered the western coast, too, as that cements trade with the Ethiopians and other miscellaneous civs.:)

right, basically, a conquest by alexander would be a giant loop arund the entire Arabaid peninsula, as there was no need to really conqoure the interior, 'cept mabey to save your self some troubles with barbarian tribes...

So, does anybody know of Alexander's major plans after the Arabian Peninsula?:confused:

According to some writings Alexander was planning the exploration and parallel conquest of the Arabian peninsula just before he died. He had his army and navy - the latter under Nearchos' command - ready to campaign within the next days after the appearance of his illness but never made it.

Apart of the conquest of Arabia among his plans was the conquest of North Africa, possibly up to the Gibraltar straits, the construction of 7 major temples in Delphi, Delos, Dodonie, Dion, Amphipolis, Kyrros and Ilion, and the organizing of several naval and commercial stations all over the North Africa coastline.

Personally I beleive depending on how long he would live and the situation he would possibly attempt to siege under his control the Indian peninsula in a future time.

He had married two Persian princesses and had two sons, one with each one of them, Hercules with Varsini (?) and Alexander with Roxane. The latter was born after his death. They where all murdered in the years that followed the death of Alexander the Great.

It is said that Alexander intensions were a merge of both Greek and Eastern (Persian, Egyptian. etc.) civilizations into one universal civilization and he did several steps toward this before he died.

This helps. With Keygen's info, we can safely say that after an Arabian conquest, he would have gone to war with Carthage. W00T! I smell a scen idea.:D