StarDestroyer.Net BBS

As we all know, Alexander the Great died of illness at Babylon after conquering most of the known world at that time. What would happen if he survived?

No one quite knows, although a number of "last plans" were read to his army after his death, albiet they'e complete forgeries.

Likely, his Orientalization policy would have continued, as would his forced intermarriage of the Macedonian and Persian nobility. He was still technically at war with the Carthaginians, whom he had declared war against due to their moral support of their Phoenecian brethren during the seige of Tyre, so an expedition against them isn't out of the question. Some like to think he would have gone after the Romans, who Arrian claims were causing him some concern as early as his return from India. He also might have tried to reach the end of India where he supposed the world ended, and he also toyed with the idea of sailing around Africa, which obviously would have failed.

Depending on what you think of him and what sources you believe, he might have pushed harder to be recognized as the son of Zeus Ammon.

A lot of it depends on the quality of his son, by either Roxanne or Strateira (Alexander and Hercules, respectively), because so much of Alexander's empire was held together by his reputation. If either heir was strong enough martially, he could arguably keep huge portions of it from falling apart after Alexander's death. And if Alexander lived long enough to succesfully integrate the Persians and Macedonians fully together in the nobility and army, his empire's longevity would probably have been that much more.

TC Pilot hit the nail on the head, so let me just add a few stray thoughts:

TC Pilot wrote:Likely, his Orientalization policy would have continued, as would his forced intermarriage of the Macedonian and Persian nobility.

Agreed.

He was still technically at war with the Carthaginians, whom he had declared war against due to their moral support of their Phoenecian brethren during the seige of Tyre, so an expedition against them isn't out of the question.

Not out of the question, but I really doubt Alexander can afford leaving his empire at that point. Most likely he sends one of his generals after them. Anyway, Carthage, not Rome, will be the truly hard nut to crack here. Alexander has to establish naval supremacy if he wants to have any hope of besieging Carthage, without it he won't even be able to land an army in North Africa.

Can he do that? Who knows. The Carthagineans routinely field navies which number in the several hundreds at this point, and those are certainly the best admirals and sailors Alexander will ever have faced. Note that Alexander never had that much faith in his navy, and the quality of his own navy is spotty at best. I certainly wouldn't bet on the loyalty of the phoenicians or the greeks, but if they are loyal, Alexander certainly would hold the numerical advantage with a 2-1 or even 3-1 advantage. Will that be enough? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on whether he can draw on the greek contingents. Nevertheless, let's assume Alexander manages to gain naval supremacy.

What then? Sicily - which he will have to take - is a bloodbath all around, with the Carthagineans throwing around forces numbering as high as 70-80.000 according to Plutarch. It will be a long, drawn out siegefest as well. Then, he has to also subdue the polis of syracus as well as check the romans at his flank. The advent of him on the stage might also be enough to cause the three parties - romans, Syracus and Carthage - to form an alliance, as Carthage and Rome did against Pyrrhus. In the event of that happening,Alexander is in for a world of hurt. As for the likelihood of such an alliance - note that the romans were trading partners and allies of the carthagineans at that period. In fact, at this point in time, Rome had no ambitions whatsoever regarding Sicily and they were quite happy to be kept out of it. Yet it was the advent of an outside power gaining a foothold that caused them to ally themselves with the carthagineans. That power was Pyrrhus of Epiros. If an even greater danger (Alexander) sets foot on Sicily, they will form an alliance, make no mistake about it.

Of course, the persian empire can outproduce all three of them, maybe even if they band together. The problem is how many casualties can Alexander take? If he sends his persian troops against them without the makedonian forces or the silvershields, I do not believe his troops stand a chance. And he cannot afford any makedonian or silvershield casualties at this point, since his rule is still not cemented at this point.

And that is the main point which prohibits any invasion - the troubles of his empire. At this point, the greeks are all but in open revolt, with tribes like the molosser under Pyrrhus already entering the stage. Sparta already staged one revolt against Alexander's reign and it was only the decisive action of his governor that prevented an open revolt. So I assume he will first pacify the greeks and deal with Epiros. However, that will cost him time and troops. It is also unclear how he will rule the greeks with anything else than brute force, since the propaganda of revenge against the persians won't work anymore, his veterans and the banished returning home made him a hated man among the elite and the "Son of Zeus" spiel made him look like a blasphemer in the eyes of many greeks. Heck, if he is not careful, he might very well cause a greek-carthaginean alliance.

Then, he has to deal with the eastern frontier. Whatever gains he made in India are already lost at this point, and the nomads come calling. Granted, it will be another 50 years before the parthians arrive, but he will have to spend some resources on that frontier already. He will also most likely have to make a trip to Makedonia to convince the makedons he is still one of them. He might tie that in with a punitive expedition to greece, but considering that makedonia is pretty much bled-out already at this point, I doubt he can recruit many of them.

Based on that, I would assume that Alexander will spend the next few years trying to stabilize his empire and prevent the greek from revolting. It is quite ironic that the same problems that caused the persian empire to collapse in the first place are now back to haunt him, especially the fact that the empire is still way too overstretched and too huge in the first place. So I have no doubt that the empire will occupy him.

Yet, if he decides to expand westwards, it won't be a very smooth ride for him, as I have outlined above. My most realistic assessment is that Alexander will make peace with the Carthagineans and ignore Rome. However, Alexander was not a realist at all, so it might very well happen that he tries to push westwards.

In that order, let me just finish by making a quick rundown of the forces. No doubt the roman manipular legion is the superior element compared to the makedonian phalanx. However, the roman generals were not that stellar at that time. Yet that problem (as well as the problem of support troops) can easily be fixed by an aforementioned alliance. A combined army of roman legions, Carthaginean cavalry and archers, supported by Syracusean skirmishers and commanded by Agathocles or Hamilcar will be a worthy match for any army Alexander might have assembled, especially considering those generals were probably of comparable skill to Alexander. Come to think of it, that would make an epic fic.

Some like to think he would have gone after the Romans, who Arrian claims were causing him some concern as early as his return from India.

That claim is not really considered true AFAIK, most consider it as a stylistic element by Arrian.

He also might have tried to reach the end of India where he supposed the world ended,

That is actually a scenario I find way more plausible than any "Alexander goes to war with Rome/Carthage/Sicily" scenario.

and he also toyed with the idea of sailing around Africa, which obviously would have failed.

Who knows, maybe he would have met Carthaginean explorers halfway.

Depending on what you think of him and what sources you believe, he might have pushed harder to be recognized as the son of Zeus Ammon.

Since he needs some ideology to hold his empire together, I have no doubt that would have occurred. Most likely alongside a tour through Greece.

A lot of it depends on the quality of his son, by either Roxanne or Strateira (Alexander and Hercules, respectively), because so much of Alexander's empire was held together by his reputation. If either heir was strong enough martially, he could arguably keep huge portions of it from falling apart after Alexander's death. And if Alexander lived long enough to succesfully integrate the Persians and Macedonians fully together in the nobility and army, his empire's longevity would probably have been that much more.

Yeah, but what happens when the Parthians and the Romans/Carthagineans show up? No matter the quality of his son, I have no doubt that the persian empire would have gone belly-up in the long run anyway, since the same problems that caused the ruin of the persian empire would have persisted anyway.

I think at this point, Alexander's armies are still capable of their combined arms tactics. It was only in the wars after his death that his army was destroyed by the Diadochi fighting each other. The phalanxes that went up against the Romans weren't being used right. They were being used to decide the battle, rather then pinning the enemy in place so the cavalry could flank them. But it all comes down to how quickly soldiers can be recruited. If Alexander's elites are cut to bits in the opening stages of the conflict, that could very welll decide the conflict.

How much of an army did he had left at that time? Did he expand most of his army the way Napoleon did in Russia?

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:How much of an army did he had left at that time? Did he expand most of his army the way Napoleon did in Russia?

It depends what sources you consult. I would wager he could call up about 30.000 core troops, with 3/4 of them being of persian origin at this point. Based on the resources available to Dareios, I would imagine he could further levy about 100.000 additional troops, although those won't be worth much compared to the enemies they will fight. Recruiting new macedonians is not possible, as all recruits are needed to keep the greeks in check.

Setzer wrote:I think at this point, Alexander's armies are still capable of their combined arms tactics. It was only in the wars after his death that his army was destroyed by the Diadochi fighting each other. The phalanxes that went up against the Romans weren't being used right. They were being used to decide the battle, rather then pinning the enemy in place so the cavalry could flank them.

Actually, if you recall, the phalanxes at Pydna were used exactly in the way Alexander used them - a quick attack to keep the enemy line occupied. It was the failure of the macedonian cavalry and light forces to succesfully outflank the romans that decided the battle eventually when the romans then outflanked them in return. Let's face it, the manipular legion is inherently superior to the macedonian phalanx.

But it all comes down to how quickly soldiers can be recruited. If Alexander's elites are cut to bits in the opening stages of the conflict, that could very welll decide the conflict.

Agreed, with the caveat that Alexander does have the superior manpower reserves, although of course I would rather have one roman reservist instead of three persian levies in my army.

Thanas wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:How much of an army did he had left at that time? Did he expand most of his army the way Napoleon did in Russia?

It depends what sources you consult. I would wager he could call up about 30.000 core troops, with 3/4 of them being of persian origin at this point. Based on the resources available to Dareios, I would imagine he could further levy about 100.000 additional troops, although those won't be worth much compared to the enemies they will fight. Recruiting new macedonians is not possible, as all recruits are needed to keep the greeks in check.

Having most of his troops Persian isn't going to enamor him to his Greek generals right? I remember there was plenty of dissent among his generals over his Persian leanings as it is.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Having most of his troops Persian isn't going to enamor him to his Greek generals right? I remember there was plenty of dissent among his generals over his Persian leanings as it is.

Yeah, but most of the old guard were gone by then. The younger ones were quite willing to command persian troops or at least pretend they are. Wouldn't want to end up like Kleitos, I guess. So I do not believe that will be a problem, nor did the core troops deviate too much in quality from the macedonian troops they replaced.

Alexander was quite thoroughly in command of the Macedonians by the end. Parmenio and Philotas had been offed long ago, Cleitus was dead, and Coenus, the man who spoke on the army's behalf in India, had died just days after Alexander was forced to return west. All that was left were people like Hephaestion and Ptolemy, people who were the king's childhood friends. He'd also been rewarding people like Puecestas, the man who supposedly saved his life against the Malli and was decent enough to assimilate Persian culture and learn the language, with honoraries and satrapies.

Oh yeah, plus he's been paying off the entire army's debts, something to the amount of 10,000 talents (which, if my ballpark conversion is accurate, is something like 8 billion dollars).

In fact, the second army "mutiny" of Alexander's career, the one at Baghdad, was caused greatly in part to Alexander's introduction of Persians into the Companions and training new recruits as Macedonian phalanxes. He thoroughly crushed it.

The only Macedonian I could imagine would even be in a position to consider challenging Alexander would be Antipater, and he's got enough trouble back home to make that impossible.