History - What would have you made different?

[Ad Hominem]

The library was stripped by the time it's physical location (the buildings) were burned down. Most stuff was retained by Arabs, lots of staff by Christians (hundreds of Monasteries in both western and eastern Europe got hold of precious manuscripts from the Biblioteca Alexandrina).

but the use they put that stuff into... a few years ago researchers have been able to restore an Archimedes manuscript, which was used by some moronic monks somewhere in Europe to write (after trying to remove the older writing - papyrus was very rare and expensive back then) hymns to their lord!!!

As for what I'd do... well, I'd make sure Alexander the Great does leave a successor and that the ancient world gets dominated by the Great Greek Empire. Maybe I'll even treat Alexander with some antibiotics to prevent his death.

there would be no Rome, no Christianity, no Islam - nothing - had Alexander had the chance to a)conclude his conquest, b)live long enough to establish a stable rule over the conquered lands.

Or, alternatively, I'd go in the times of the Peloponessian war and make sure Athens (a progressive, outside oriented, empire-builder-wannabe city-state) would win the war against Sparta (a backwards, inwards-oriented, "mind-your-own-business" city-state).

Then Athens would go on and create a Greek empire half a century before Alexander.

 

[Mescalhead]

Good ideas, but I doubt that the Persians coud have been subdued for very long.
Also, I believe that the rise Rome was absolutely necessary for the progression of Western Europe. Not to say that I am disdainful of the societies that the Celts and Germans had, but they lacked unity, and down the road, if the Romans did not conquer them, someone less favorable would have. So possibly holding together the Hellenic Empire, and having Rome gain power in the west, that would most likely have a very favorable outcome for Europe. And hopefully (from a Eurocentric point of view) Parthia would have gotten their Arcsacid arses handed to them by a coalition of Hellenic and Roman forces.

Damn, the world could have been a much better place.

I would just hate to see the wars between Rome and the great Alexandrian Empire.

 

[Ad Hominem]

Well, if Alex would've lived a decade or so longer, no Rome would ever emerge - his next target was Nabataea (he was finalizing the details of the expedition when he died) and then the Italian peninsula.

He would've conquered the cita eternita in a matter of weeks... and then? Probably I'd find a way to kill him, because he'd want to march all the way to China

 

[Xen]

actually, if any of you think Rome would not have emerged if the Aexandria empire had survived, your naive, and need to take a look at history- because if you would bother to actually look, you would see that Rome had already domnated most of the Itallian penensula.... fact is, if Alexcander had treid to invade italy he would have had limited success- the samnites alone would have been able to hold Alexander off, as there territory was a nightmare for any one who wised to use phalanx tactics, combine the fact that the actual veiw of warfare was different- the Greeks, including the macedonians, helled a veif war centerted around skirmishes, and a single large battle to end the campaign- the Roman veiw, as one migh thave noticed, is to keep at it untill the job is done, and done right- basically, the Romans would have out lasted Alexanders forces, as, lets face facts here, the greeks were already disgruntled at having to march so far east, and eventualyl sat down, and refused to go farther at one point, combine this with the fact that in the west, they would meet enemies that, unlike the persian levies, were individuals citizens, fight for hearth and home, well equpped, and willing to fight, I see no contest

 

[Amenhotep7]

Wow! More discussion!

Anyways, I would have prevented Rome from falling, as I said.

But I need to know: Since there's been this somwhat heated debate over who would win in an Alexandrian Macedon-Early Roman Republic war. What were the number of troops for each kingdom? I'd imagine Macedon's numbers woulb be much larger, and of course, this could play a keyfactor in the war. Then again, the bulk of his numbers would probably be maintaining the huge Alexandrian Empire, which could offset any hopes of gathering HUGE numbers. Hmm...

 

[Xen]

numbers are unimportant- in the wars between Greece, and Rome in rel life, n all came down to strategy- you find that the Romans were msters of takeing advantage of the unweildlly greek phalanx, and use dit to huge advantges, inflicing horrible losses on Hellenic forces, while the ROmans hardlly lost a man, on the other hand, Greek cavalry domiance on at least one occasion proved decisive on bttle field, but like like in most wars, the Romans learned from that mistake, and dint make it agin in the various macedonoian wars

 

[wildWolverine]

Hey Xen.

Two things: first, Alexander did not fight using a phalanx, per se --hence his (and Philip's) easy early victories against Thebes et al --Alexander too recognized the weakness of the phalanx. Secondly, if you study literature written during the time period being debated, you would find that this was a hot topic 2300 years ago. The main Roman argument was that they had many good generals, but the Macedonians only had one (as evident by Alexander's subordinates' inability to work together after Alexander's death). Forgetting numbers of actual troops, the Romans felt that their generals collectively were superior to Alexander. Still, I think the 18-22 foot long sarissas used by Alexander's infantry may have been more than a match for the short swords the Romans used (who had trouble even against the regular long swords used by the Gauls). Another point in the Macedonian favour is the existence of the Companions -- probably the best mounted complement to an army until well into the Medieval era. I do not believe that Alexander would have had trouble with uprisings in Persia. THe great Persian Empire was not all that old -- many of its subjects had yet to be assimilated into the Persian civilization and were glad to see Darius deposed. In addition, Alexander used revolutionary (at the time) diplomacy techniques to placate potentially hostile new subjects. His most brilliant move was probably incorporating a Persian contingent in his Companions -- by taking the Persian boys when they were still young, he was able to raise them to be "Greek" soldiers, eliminating a potential threat while simultaneously increasing his own strength.

On topic: If I could change only one thing in history, I would have the French government send a motorized rifle regiment into the Rhineland in 1936 -- Hitler is quoted as saying that a single regiment of resistance would have been enough to cause him to abandon his grand plan of conquest. Without a war, the Holocaust probably would not have happened (Hitler would be remember as an ambitious, bigoted ruler -- not all that uncommon a reputation in Europe in the mid-twentieth century). In addition, a strongly armed Germany would have prevented Stalin from making a move in Poland, and all of Eastern Europe would have escaped the nightmare in store for them during the Cold War.

 

[Xen]

A)alexander DID use the phalanx formation- it the very core of ALL of his battle plans, the only differnce was that his father had made it larger, and armed his troops differntlly

B)Alexander actually was not all the great a genral- he was a great LEADER, but as a general, not really- all of his stratagems were basicially the same one developed by his father- it just happend to be superior to anything the middle east had ever seen in terms of tactics

C)remember, in real life the Roman rolled right over macedonia while it was using the EXACT same armies as Alexander had used, companions or no companions, the Romans used terrain toi their advantage, and used it well...

D)the greeks have a stern formation that can be taken by a flanking action- the guals didnt, and so it was much more a melee battle with them

 

[Riesstiu IV]

Originally posted by Xen
C)remember, in real life the Roman rolled right over macedonia while it was using the EXACT same armies as Alexander had used, companions or no companions, the Romans used terrain toi their advantage, and used it well...

Indeed, the battle of cynoscephalae was very one sided the Romans reported to have lost 700 men, then 13'000 Macedonians were either killed or taken captive

 

[NewWaver]

If I were to change history...

I'd make it so I was born in the 1960s so I could experience the days of decent music in primary school, and spend my teenage years in the '80s going to raves.

But alas, I was stuck with being born in 1981.

 

[Ad Hominem]

Xen

Your claims do not have historical basis or justification – had Alexander marched to the West with 100-150 thousand men (absolutely feasible after the conquest of the Persian Empire) or even half those, Rome would fall in less than a week, and the whole Italian peninsula within a three to six -month period and that’s the most conservative view.

Rome had not the resources, manpower or stable allies (those they had one century later, when they came out victorious from a confrontation with mighty Carthago) to resist Alexander’s might.

Actually, the Gaul sacked Rome only a few years ago – a rag band of poorly equipped disorganized barbarian sacked Rome. Not to mention Pyrrhus, who would easily get Rome if only he had a steady (or any) flow of reinforcements – he won all the battles on Italian ground (with the same pike-bearing phalangites you believe to be no good) but there was no way to replenish his losses, because his allies at home forgot all about him once he laid foot on Italy. And he started off with 25.000 men and the resources of the small kingdom of Epirus, not with half of the known world at his disposal. Not to mention that if the Carthagenian didn’t distract him and he marched towards Rome when he had most of his army intact, he would get a good shot at getting Rome anyway.

What makes you think that the same Rome could repel Alexander’s invasion had he the time to actually launch one? And with the resources of the humongous Persian Empire at his disposal as well?

It was a no-win situation for Rome. Lucky them, they didn’t have to face Alexander.

As for the clash Greece-Rome…

When Rome faced Greece, they faced a series of City States, shadows of their past glory (Athens, Sparta) conglomerates of weak City States (Achaean League, Aetolian League) and Hellenistic Kingdoms more or less in decline (Macedonia, Egypt, Pergamos, Seleucid Empire).

In the same time Rome was the undisputed ruler of the western med. with vast resources at their disposal. And their most valuable asset was the advanced knowledge of how to handle other states. That Rome was extremely more advanced and dangerous than the Rome of 330 BC.

What Romans did in Greece was to play one against the other and that’s how they managed to subdue the Hellenic world.

Had Alexander lived, they’d face the sheer power of the whole Hellenism and that’s 1 century before they reached (the Romans) the status of a true superpower.

The Romans did not win by military means – sure they won a couple of great battles, but they managed to do so by making sure they would face only a faction at time and they also had the support of the other factions at the same time. In two out of three major battles they won against the Macedonian, a large part of their army was not some Roman or Italian Legion but their Greek allies! Pike-bearers, phalangites, Greek. How’s that about the “superiority of the legion vs the phalanx”?

If those victories prove something, that's the superiority - in the practical level - of the Roman political and social model against the Greek one.

If you wish for a tactical discussion about phalanx vs manipular legion, I would be happy to talk about this, but I don’t think this is the thread to discuss such a huge issue.

 

[SanPellegrino]

yes, if Alexander had survived, history had gone so different in so many ways, but sadly we will never know. there are some interesting what-if stories though.

 

[Xen]

Ad Hominem

Originally posted by Ad Hominem


Your claims do not have historical basis or justification – had Alexander marched to the West with 100-150 thousand men (absolutely feasible after the conquest of the Persian Empire) or even half those, Rome would fall in less than a week, and the whole Italian peninsula within a three to six -month period and that’s the most conservative view.

Rome had not the resources, manpower or stable allies (those they had one century later, when they came out victorious from a confrontation with mighty Carthago) to resist Alexander’s might.

care to prove it? by the time alexander reached the ndus half of his army- and mind you he was only trying to keep his origional number fo troops- were made up of persians, any estimate of even 1oo hundred thousand is pure fallicy, and simply not [possible if you want ANYTHING pther then poorlly armed, poorlly trained, meat grinder persian style vassal infantry- the same type fo troops that got chewed up by the little greek city states in the persian wars so easilly- and the simple thought that had not the stable allies to is pure nonsense- at that time the Roman republic WAS more or less a giant well organized alliance- and if you naive enought to think that the otyher itallic peoples werent willing to ally with Rome to take care of a mutual threat- as they those itallic people readilly did when the Roman republic was a threat to them, then all i can do is say you need to re-read your histories

Originally posted by Ad Hominem

Actually, the Gaul sacked Rome only a few years ago – a rag band of poorly equipped disorganized barbarian sacked Rome.

very right, this initiated the reforms that made the republican roman army the most efficent battefroce fo its day- against greek, and barbarian alike

Originally posted by Ad Hominem

Not to mention Pyrrhus, who would easily get Rome if only he had a steady (or any) flow of reinforcements – he won all the battles on Italian ground (with the same pike-bearing phalangites you believe to be no good) but there was no way to replenish his losses, because his allies at home forgot all about him once he laid foot on Italy. And he started off with 25.000 men and the resources of the small kingdom of Epirus, not with half of the known world at his disposal. Not to mention that if the Carthagenian didn’t distract him and he marched towards Rome when he had most of his army intact, he would get a good shot at getting Rome anyway.

Originally posted by Ad Hominem

What makes you think that the same Rome could repel Alexander’s invasion had he the time to actually launch one? And with the resources of the humongous Persian Empire at his disposal as well?

Originally posted by Ad Hominem

It was a no-win situation for Rome. Lucky them, they didn’t have to face Alexander.

I do belive you have the situation reversed

Originally posted by Ad Hominem

As for the clash Greece-Rome…

When Rome faced Greece, they faced a series of City States, shadows of their past glory (Athens, Sparta) conglomerates of weak City States (Achaean League, Aetolian League) and Hellenistic Kingdoms more or less in decline (Macedonia, Egypt, Pergamos, Seleucid Empire).

such things matter not on the battle feild- for on the battle feild the status of tweo states in that period is rendered null, and all the gold in the world could not matter- its army againsty army, not crates of grain, or numbers of forges

Originally posted by Ad Hominem

In the same time Rome was the undisputed ruler of the western med. with vast resources at their disposal. And their most valuable asset was the advanced knowledge of how to handle other states. That Rome was extremely more advanced and dangerous than the Rome of 330 BC.

resources count for precious little other then how many swoards you make- of little value unless you have skilled generals to make use of them, and if anyone might bother to take notice, Alexander and his boys really werent all that brilliant

Originally posted by Ad Hominem

What Romans did in Greece was to play one against the other and that’s how they managed to subdue the Hellenic world.

your very right- what you dont acknolwedg eis that the potential was ripe to do the same in Alexanders time- the souther Greek city states, no matter what Alexander did, still held him in contempt as a meglomanic despot, and if gived half a chance would have rebelled- as history shows they did

Originally posted by Ad Hominem

Had Alexander lived, they’d face the sheer power of the whole Hellenism and that’s 1 century before they reached (the Romans) the status of a true superpower.

similer could have been said of persia might going against the greek city states- and we all know how that ended up

Originally posted by Ad Hominem

The Romans did not win by military means – sure they won a couple of great battles, but they managed to do so by making sure they would face only a faction at time and they also had the support of the other factions at the same time. In two out of three major battles they won against the Macedonian, a large part of their army was not some Roman or Italian Legion but their Greek allies! Pike-bearers, phalangites, Greek. How’s that about the “superiority of the legion vs the phalanx”?

when fighting for your homeland, things become very different - I have no doubt what so ever that Alexander would have been thwarted when trying to take out the Samnites in their mountanous homelands- the Samnites had been a threat the greek colonies had never been able to subdue, namelly because the land is a phalanxes worts nighmare- it was essentially the same terrain as the ever nortorious batte of cynoscephalae add to this the fact that a great deal of ROman allies would have been fighting in the phalanx style, and you basically have a force that bears a great deal of resemblence to the very forces the defeated the macedonians at that battle- except they would have the benifit of larger total numbers, and a much stronger force of light/medium troops provided by the oscans, and samnites

 

[samildanach]

If the Macedonians had faced the Romans on the battlefield then at some point we might expect Alexander to lead his companion cavalry into the flank of a legion. Flanking persian farm boys or a phalanx engaged with opposing foot soldiers is one thing but flanking a legion, while preferable to taking it on from front, is still a very quick way to die. So, I go for the middle ground. The Macedonians win the day but their Great Leader dies in the process, the Macedonians subsequently melt away to bicker over their Empire and to mourn their leader and Rome lives to fight another day.

 

[#1 Person]

Chaos theory. If you stopped the muslims then the world might all be under alien rule.

But if there were lot so many far reaching consequences then i would say... stopping the development of nuclear weapons in the 1940's.

 

[#1 Person]

Or prehapes find a way around the alps for Hannible and tell him just to attack Rome first and the other cities later.

 

[wildWolverine]

I'm not sure if you meant NOT instead of lot in "lot so many far reaching consequences," but stopping the development of nuclear weapons would have had horrific results.

As is, roughly 110,000 Japanese died as a result of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (including long term deaths, caused by radiation induced cancer). A horrible number of deaths, to be true. However, at the beginning of August 1945, Japan had over 3 million soldiers in the Home Islands, and 1.5 million in Manchukuo (formerly Manchuria) on mainland Asia. If the remaining soldiers fought like their companions did on the various islands of the Pacific, at least two million Japanese soldiers would have been killed. This does not include the number of citizens who would have been killed by the bombing of Japanese cities and during the various battles that would have taken place (as a reference, more than 100,000 Japanese citizens were killed in ONE conventional bombing raid -- the firebombing of Tokyo). In addition, the most conservative estimates place American and British casualties at over 1 million if they invaded the Home Islands. THose would be the immediate consequences.

There would also be more long reaching effects. Without the nuclear deterrent, there most likely would have been another war in Europe between the Eastern Bloc and NATO. Even if NATO had emerged victorious (rather unlikely -- I don't remember the exact numbers, but NATO tanks were outnumbered something like 7-1 and NATO aircraft were outnumbered 10-1 by their Soviet counterparts), such a conflict would have resulted in an unfathomable number of deaths and the total annihilation of Europe as an industrial culture.

Another aspect to consider is commercial power. Despite what the media may tell you, nuclear fission in the cleanest, most efficient form of electric energy production capable to man (at least until fusion is mastered, a goal several decades in the future). Nuclear power accounts for a significant chunk of the power generated in the world (see link: Power Percentages ). Without the advances made by the Manhattan Project, commercial nuclear plants could not exist.

While nuclear weapons are certainly overly destructive, and were the cause of much tension and many problems both during the Cold War and through today, their existence, thus far (and so until the "end"), has had more benefits than detractoins. Call me naive, but I don't think that we as a people will ever induce a "nuclear winter".....

 

[Xen]

Originally posted by #1 Person
Or prehapes find a way around the alps for Hannible and tell him just to attack Rome first and the other cities later.

atach Rome and do what? sit down out side the cities walls?

without seige weapons- which, BTW, Carthage apperntlly couldnt produce, hannibal couldnt have taken Rome

 

[Amenhotep7]

He could have, by starving the Romans out. Or do what the Vikings did. Wait till the birds who nest in the city to fly out for a morning hunt, cath it, tie a burning twig to it's back, and send it back in. The city would burn to a crisp, with enough birds! The Vikings actually did do this in Sicily, and the writings say it was highly effective.

 

[wildWolverine]

Perhaps, Xen, you do not realize the ingenuity possessed by Alexander. Sogdiana was one of the more formiddable kingdoms in western India. It had a renowned fortress on the Rock of Sogdiana, an impregnable stronghold that could only be approached by a steep, winding path wide enough for only one man at a time -- in short, not even your vaunted legio would have been able to take it by force while a determined garrison defended it. Alexander could not afford to leave such a fortress to his rear. At nightfall, Alexander called for the inhabitants of the fortress to surrender. Of course, they refused. During the night, he sent approximately one hundred volunteers to scale the other side of the rock, telling them to display themselves prominently on the peak of the mountain -- several hundred metres above the fortress. Upon daybreak, the defenders of the fortress saw the Macedonians on the mountaintop and became afraid of these "flying warriors," and immediately surrendered. Another example could be the siege of Tyre, the evidence of which still exists today (i.e., he completely built the causeway that still connects the ruins to the mainland). The point is, Alexander was an incredibly skilled problem solver for that day an age. While at some points he was just plain lucky (the Battle of Granikus River comes to mind), more often than not, it was Alexander's careful plans that won the day. The man who managed the long siege of Tyre, an island city with a strong navy, could likely have managed the capture of Rome. However, in ancient warfare, even the best laid plans can be ruined by a conceived bad omen. Note, I'm not saying Alexander would have been victorious, I'm merely stating that the odds aren't terribly against it.