Intelligent 'What If's - Pivotal Decisions

[Neonanocyborgasm]

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.

 

[Dachs]

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. 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.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

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?

 

[zjl56]

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.

 

[Disenfrancised]

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.

 

[zjl56]

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.

 

[Dragonlord]

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...

 

[Disenfrancised]

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.

 

[Keroro]

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?

 

[Dachs]

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.

 

[scy12]

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

 

[Keroro]

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?