Did Alexander the Great die at a mighty good time?

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

Well ,it's just a thought ,but how would Alexander the great have turned out to be if he died at a later age? Could he have continued his great conquering achievement's or would he have been a great ruler over his vast empire?
ny dying at that age ,at the top of his millitary achievement's i think has given Alexander the Great a almost perfect reputation ad fame all over the world.
Alexander's ultimate goal was to make him famous for the rest of history ,and he accomplished that at the right moment i guess.Although Alexander was a very intelligent person ,educated by great philosopher's ,i don't think he could symbolicly achieve more as a ruler than as a conquerer ,and that any longer rulership by him eventualy would have made his position in history less known through the world.

And then again i ask myself ,don't all great leader's die at a mighty good time?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Yes, because the Chaos Spirit was just about to overcome his resistance and his Sipstrassi necklace was waning in power. Instead, Kadmillos was thwarted and the world saved! (Gemmell reference )

Meanwhile, back in the real world....He died with the reputation as a young conqueror with a great record. He was not tested on the trial of being a great ruler as well as conqueror. It has been a common occurence that great conquerors do not make great rulers.

Therefore we remember him not as a jaded Persian monarch, corpulent and thoroughly naughty, nor as a violent, alcoholic, bisexual psychopath.
He is remembered as a bright, golden young warrior king.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Western History would have been very different, He had begun preliminary planning for expnasion into Italy.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Had he lived longer, he would probably have consolidated his position and his empire would have survived whole, rather than being divided among his generals after his death. At the very least.

 

[MCdread]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
It has been a common occurence that great conquerors do not make great rulers.

So it is. However, I'm not so sure about Alexander. For the epoch and for the age he had, he took some interesting political steps. I don't recall any other prior conqueror doing what he did. During the campaign he tried to consolidate his power. For instance, he founded numerous cities throughout his empire, in an attempt to fuse the greek culture and the eastern cultures. He included a large number of locals in his army and while he was in Persia he did his best not to look as a foreigner invader, but rather a legitimate ruler. He gave Darius all the honours in his funeral and tried not to hostilize the locals. He also made Babylon his capital, right at the center of his empire. Some of these actions caused resentments in his macedonian and greek officers, who wanted to be regarded as the absolute rulers and revenge the past persian aggressions.
I think he was really trying to organize his empire. However, it is also true that he was a very obstinate person, and at his death he desired more to go and continue is bloody conquests than to seat and rule the empire.

 

[Kublai-Khan]

He was planning to conquer carthague and arabia felix, he also wanted to conquer rome because alexander of epirus died fighting the romans if i recall correctly, i remember reading that he also wanted to conquer the kingdom of magada in the ganges,
i think that trade would have been invreased in the arabian and red sea, i thibk that that was the reason of the expedition of nearchus.

 

[dtziouf]

alexander of epirus

Who is Alexander of Epirus ? the only king of Epirus who fought the Romans is Pyrros.He won 2 battles ,but lost the third crucial one.
Nearchos sailed through the Persian gulf with a part of th e greek army

 

[allhailIndia]

I am not so sure about his plans for an invasion or the expansion of his Kingdom, but Alexander was planning to rule his dominion in a decent and humane way. He gave up trying to conquer Magadha and settled for a peace treaty with them. Although his Phalanxes and Cavalry were unbeatable, his soldiers did not like his non stop campaigns.

 

[Kublai-Khan]

Originally posted by dtziouf



Who is Alexander of Epirus ? the only king of Epirus who fought the Romans is Pyrros.He won 2 battles ,but lost the third crucial one.
Nearchos sailed through the Persian gulf with a part of th e greek army

I am talking about Alexander of Epirus (Alexander the molossian), his sister was Olimpia, mother of Alexander the great.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

He was also working on ways to imrove his armies performance in rough terrain, which hampered the phalanx. Harkening to the future armies of musket and pike, he was experimenting with combining phalanx with archers in the main line.

 

[allhailIndia]

The New things we learn each day at Civanatics .com that our history books simply refuse to print

 

[Stefan Haertel]

I doubt that the question, what would have been if Alexander had lived on indeed makes so much sense.
There have been plans to conquer Arabia Felix, as Kubilai pointed out, and it is speculated (but not proven) that Alexander would have gone on to conquer Carthage. Perhaps he would have at least tried to extend the african part of his empire into Nubia and Libya, possibly assaulting Carthage, in order to complete the failed plans of Cambyses II.
But from then... maybe he would have gone on to unite all Greek-speaking territories under his rule. Maybe he would have tried to go back and invade India. Maybe he would all of the sudden have become obsessed by conquering all territories held by the Celtic tribes. Maybe he would have tried to see what "Cathay" is. Maybe he would have suddenly become interested in Africa. We can really not tell.
In my opinion, it is more interesting to examine the results of Alexander's early death (as a matter of fact, that is the topic of a recent school project of mine).
We must imagine the character of Alexander the Great in his times like a modern Pop Star. This may sound irrelevant, but this comparrison is justified. Alexander's early death can be compared to what happened after the deaths of Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley, etc. These people all died young, or at least relatively young, and they were mythologized by their fans. Today, they are cult heroes. Alexanders case was a bit more extreme, but it was very similar. Alexander was still worshipped centuries later. Later rulers saw themselves as reincarnations of Alexander- Caracalla, I think, wanted to revive his work. Of course, he failed. Caracalla ruled in the early 3d century AD.

 

[elfstorm]

I don't know if Alexander died at the right time or not.

But Napoleon writing his memiors on St.Helena certainly thought so. He remarked bitterly that if only he'd died in the Kremlin he'd be remembered for ever as the greatest man of all time.

At note on Alexanders last plans (circumnavigating africa, war with Carthage, conquest of rome, etc, etc...)

While later historians, Arrian and Rufus for example, list them, because of the scant nature of original source material we have no way of knowing if they were true or merely the invention of Roman historians. Or indeed propaganda inventions of Alexanders sucessors, many of whom had much to gain by manipulating the truth after his death.

Just about the only thing professional historians seem to agree upon regarding his unfulfilled plans was that he had further ambitions.

But just because he had lived doesn't mean he would have waged war on Rome. (Though later Roman historians certainly list this as one major plan).

Just how much would Alexander have achieved with the resources of the persian empire?

 

[Kadazzle]

I am talking about Alexandros of Epirus (Alexander the molossian), his sister was Olympia, mother of Alexander the great.

Got the names wrong.

Anyways, Alexander would've been a great ruler. He never wanted people to think of him as a conquerer, but as a king. Alexander gave his conquered citizens right and he didn't sack their cities, like most conquerers would've done. He gave more rights to his people and introduced promotion on merit.

 

[Tee Kay]

Lol another thread about how Alexander might conquer the world.

If Alexander had lived, he might've carried out his latest plan, ie, invading Carthage, Arabia and the western Mediterranean. What he will do next depends on whether he wins. If he wins, then it is likely he will need to spend the rest of his life trying to connect all the areas of his vast empire, with only occasional military expeditions. After his death, his empire will most likely split apart, although the course of history would've been very different.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Closed.

Pls do not resurrect ancient threads. Thanks.