Help support TMP

"If Alexander had lived as long as Philip" Topic

62 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Ancients Discussion Message Board

2,356 hits since 24 Aug 2010
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 

Diadochoi Inactive Member24 Aug 2010 9:45 a.m. PST

Alexander the Great was 32 when he died after ruling for thirteen years. His father Philip II was 46 when he was assassinated.

At the time of his death Alexander was planning conquests in the west. He was building a fleet in the mediteranean and planning to conquer Arabia.

Had he lived as long as his father, he would have doubled the length of his reign and would possibly have gone up against Syracuse, Carthage and a non-united Italy.

In addition, the succession to the ruler of the empire might have been much more clear and the fragmentation into the competing Hellenistic states that occured within a few years of his death might have been avoided, resulting in a single Hellenistic state.

What would have happened if Alexander had lived as long as Philip?

aecurtis Fezian Inactive Member24 Aug 2010 9:47 a.m. PST

He would have drunk a lot more.


raylev324 Aug 2010 9:51 a.m. PST

He would still would have died, only later.

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian24 Aug 2010 9:55 a.m. PST

His troops would have rebelled?

Scutatus Inactive Member24 Aug 2010 9:57 a.m. PST

His luck would have run out and someone would have finally beaten him.

He took a lot of risks with his tactics and luck as much as anything got him through more than once. Fortune favours the bold and all that, and Alexander built his career on it, but sooner or later such recklessness backfires. I think Alexander used up the last of his luck in India and a further campaign in the West would have been that one too many. He wasn't the same man who had left Macedonia; he was older, iller, drunker. Somehow I don't think he would have repeated his earlier glories in the West.

CooperSteveOnTheLaptop24 Aug 2010 10:00 a.m. PST

What Scutatus said. Plus he was starting to pus his friends off

RavenscraftCybernetics Inactive Member24 Aug 2010 10:02 a.m. PST

I think Allen has it right.

Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP24 Aug 2010 10:02 a.m. PST

I doubt he would have gone against Carthage, or anyone else. His troops mutinied on him, and forced him to return "home", althought he did take the long way and lost about half of them in the desert.
He would have needed to recruit a whole new army, first.
Then, he would have needed a "legal" justification to go against Carthage. He had one to go against the Persians, ginned up as it was. He conquered all he did chasing rebels, pacifying provinces, avenging slights to the Persian crown he now held. What would have been his feeble excuse to go against Carthage?

Had he lived after Babylon, I think he would have spent the rest of his life putting down rebellions in the East. I think he would have simply disappeared chasing some tribe out on to the steppes, his whole army wiped out, including any tame historians he was dragging long who had survived his drunken paranoia, and never been heard from again.

His reputation is lucky he died young.

TKindred Supporting Member of TMP24 Aug 2010 10:05 a.m. PST

Alexander's own troops and officers had had enough as it was. If he had taken some time from campaigning to strengthen his empire, and rest his forces, then perhaps he might have been successful in the west. However, we'll never know.

Myself, I'm of the opinion he was murdered because he wouldn't listen to any of his friends and just settle down for a bit.

Diadochoi Inactive Member24 Aug 2010 10:12 a.m. PST

He already had raised a new army:

"When he returned to Babylon he found that Peucestas had arrived from Persis, bringing with him an army of 20,000 Persians, as well as many Cossaeans and Tapurians, because these races were reported to be the most warlike of those bordering on Persis. Philoxenus also came to him bringing an army from Caria; Menander, with another from Lydia, and Menidas with the cavalry which had been put under his command" and "He distributed these foreign soldiers among the Macedonian ranks in the following way. Each company was led by a Macedonian decurion, and next to him was a Macedonian receiving double pay for distinguished valour; and then came one who received ten staters (monthly), who was so named from the pay he received, being somewhat less than that received by the man with double pay, but more than that of the men who were serving as soldiers without holding a position of honour. Next to these came twelve Persians, and last in the company another Macedonian, who also received the pay of ten staters; so that in each company there were twelve Persians and four Macedonians, three of whom received higher pay, and the fourth was in command of the company. The Macedonians were armed in their hereditary manner; but of the Persians some were archers, while others had javelins furnished with straps, by which they were held."

and a fleet and readied and the pretext for the invasion of Arabia:

"Near Babylon he made a harbour by excavation large enough to afford anchorage to 1,000 ships of war; and adjoining the harbour he made dockyards. Miccalus the Clazomenian was despatched to Phoenicia and Syria with 500 talents to enlist some men and to purchase others who were experienced in nautical affairs. For Alexander designed to colonize the sea-board near the Persian Gulf, as well as the islands in that sea. For he thought that this land would become no less prosperous than Phoenicia. He made these preparations of the fleet to attack the main body of the Arabs, under the pretext that they were the only barbarians of this region who had not sent an embassy to him or done anything else becoming their position and showing respect to him. But the truth was, as it seems to me, that Alexander was insatiably ambitious of ever acquiring fresh territory".

Even if Allen has it right and he did nothing except drink, would there have been a single united Hellenistic state instead of the 3 major empires (plus minor states) that the romans had to fight more than a century later?

rddfxx Inactive Member24 Aug 2010 10:22 a.m. PST

"I think he would have spent the rest of his life putting down rebellions in the East. I think he would have simply disappeared chasing some tribe out on to the steppes"

Amen, OFM, although he may have faced a greater challenge from rebellion in the west, especially given his medizing tendencies. Hey, no reason the successor wars needed to have waited until he was actually dead.

CooperSteveOnTheLaptop24 Aug 2010 10:22 a.m. PST

"Miccalus the Clazomenian"

Bet Alexandros couldn't say his name after a skinful.

Diadochi – for an empire like that to survive the quality of each hereditary monarch has to stay the same. One less than brilliant statesman or general & the whole thing unravels.

Diadochoi Inactive Member24 Aug 2010 10:29 a.m. PST

CooperSteve – I agree, but lets give him 14 more years and suppose the first succession works (after all look how long the Roman Empire lasted and even the 3 major bits of Alexanders Empire, which were substantial entities in themselves lasted many generations – look at the Selucid Empire).

This might imply the futher Hellenization of the west by conquest. Carthage, Syracuse and the Greek city states in Italy would be targets or would be used as causus belli for Alexander to go against Rome and other Latins?

Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP24 Aug 2010 10:33 a.m. PST

… would there have been a single united Hellenistic state instead of the 3 major empires (plus minor states)…

No. His empire was far too large and disparate to govern easily as a single unit. It was already unraveling before he died.
It fractured into "logical" entities. Too bad for all the little nations along the traditional unclear borders.

Empires are easy to conquer, and not so easy to maintain. Alex was easy to admire, but no one really thought he was practical.
All he really accomplished was to abruptly change the race of the temporary rulers of the smaller traditionhal empires.

Shagnasty Supporting Member of TMP24 Aug 2010 10:35 a.m. PST

Ye of little faith. He was THE MAN! Had he not encountered that mosquito he would have accomplished whatever he wished.

Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP24 Aug 2010 10:38 a.m. PST

He already had raised a new army:…

The Macedonians were armed in their hereditary manner; but of the Persians some were archers, while others had javelins furnished with straps, by which they were held.,,

Yeah, that worked out real well.
Soundly thrashed by those who Mary Renault called "those terrible old men".
It sounds like the same old, same old Persian style of infantry, but with longer pointy sticks.

Diadochoi Inactive Member24 Aug 2010 10:42 a.m. PST

John, I agree Alexander had many flaws and keeping the Empire together would have been a challenge he may have failed in.

However I have to disagree with the statement, "All he really accomplished was to abruptly change the race of the temporary rulers of the smaller traditionhal empires.". The Hellenization of the Middle East for nearly 300 years after his death is a big impact (with a continuation of some aspects of this through the Byzantinium Empire etc) and the rise of the Mauyran dynasty in India can be directly linked to him as well (or the power vacumn he left).

Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP24 Aug 2010 10:44 a.m. PST

Ye of little faith. He was THE MAN! Had he not encountered that mosquito he would have accomplished whatever he wished.

His body was falling apart from years of abuse, from alcohol to many wounds sufferred in combat.
Dad was assassinated. Alex was likely to have ended up that way too. Deservedly, I might add. As mentioned above, he may have been.
Theories on his death are as numerous as writers who feel qualified to comment on it. Mosquito? Bad water? Drunken excess? Take your pick. The Internet is full of doctors who specialize in some disease who want Alex to have died from something they could have cured.
I am not a doctor, nor do I play one on TMP. grin

Diadochoi Inactive Member24 Aug 2010 10:46 a.m. PST

"It sounds like the same old, same old Persian style of infantry, but with longer pointy sticks."

but the experimental phalanx is SO much better under various wargames rules.

Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP24 Aug 2010 10:47 a.m. PST

…but the experimental phalanx is SO much better under various wargames rules.

None that I have played. grin

Diadochoi Inactive Member24 Aug 2010 10:48 a.m. PST

John – why do you think that the assassination of Alexander would have been "deserved" (compared with most rulers whose actions we try to emulate on the wargames table)?

Shagnasty Supporting Member of TMP24 Aug 2010 11:02 a.m. PST

I have always regarded him as the most admirable as well as most able of the "Great Captains."

JJartist24 Aug 2010 11:06 a.m. PST

Hmmm a lengthy "what-if?"…

The first thing to reconstruct before stepping out into the realm of what-if is to describe in detail what was. Sadly Alexander's Empire was not anything glued together at all, his style of conquest had left an Empire duct-taped together. Even as Alexander was trying to sort out his army in Babylon, Greeks in Bactria were mutinying and deserting, his satraps in India were being assasinated. A Macedonia army was wiped out in Thrace. In Greece the fact that the Lamian War broke out immediately upon his death reveals just how ready the Greeks were to try again to put off the Macedonian yoke.

Alexander's goal to take his Persian recruits with the old guard of whoever would follow on western campaigns would have solved none of his empire's problems. The key thing that would have happened is Alexander IV would have been more established as the true heir, which would have solved the initial schizm between the infantry commanders (who supported Arridaeus) and the cavalry and nobility that supported the unborn Alexander IV.

Now assuming that Alexander would have paused, raised his son for a few years, built more roads and libraries and infrastructure linking his empire, then his gains may have been less temporal.

In the end Alexander's conquests are legendary, but they are examples what can be accomplished by somebody with a great army but an immature mind. Alexander was a charismatic leader and gifted tactician and strategist, but he was a lousy king, since it is entirely his fault that his Argead dynasty- which went back a number of centuries- was obliterated forever…..

Personal logo Pictors Studio Sponsoring Member of TMP24 Aug 2010 11:29 a.m. PST

"I have always regarded him as the most admirable"

Interesting. Why do you regard him as the most admirable. Aside from drinking himself to death, possibly, and murdering his friends in both drunken rages and paranoid fits of pique he seems to have been responsible for killing a lot of other people, and non-combatants at that in many cases.

Perhaps it is just that he is admirable in a military sense?

Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP24 Aug 2010 11:36 a.m. PST

John why do you think that the assassination of Alexander would have been "deserved"

Look up all the friends he murdered:
Cleitus in a drunken fit
Parmenion as a matter of policy

And then there were the 5000 Indian mercenaries, inhabitants of many cities, including Thebes, and so on.

I find little to admire. Do you admire Caligula? Tiberius? Hitler?

Jovian1 Inactive Member24 Aug 2010 11:41 a.m. PST

There would be a reason for a film sequel?

JJartist24 Aug 2010 11:52 a.m. PST

I find little to admire. Do you admire Caligula? Tiberius? Hitler?

-----> Hmmm… the ancients admired him, since they lived in a Pre-Christian moralist world. Alexander was responsible for atrocities, as was his troops. I don't think he specifically embarked on insane campaigns of genocide, or kicked his pregnant sister in the stomach, or had a sex-slave galley in a lake in his backyard… so I think those comparisons are a bit elementary.

I'm not an apologist for Alexander, I find him to be one of the great enigmas, an incomplete life, and created the seeds of disaster that eventually allowed Rome to take over the western world. His murders are inexcuseable, he is at times the perfect illustration of "arrested development" given license to rule, but he was not entitrely mad like Caligula.

He is, as all Americans know, precisely why we despise all kings.

Marcus Brutus24 Aug 2010 11:54 a.m. PST

Alexander's empire was no larger than the Persian empire and they managed to maintain control for 200+ years or so I'm not convinced that the challenge was beyond his means. Would Alexander have used the following 13 years to consolidate his ruler over the old Persian Empire is another matter? Hard to say. He did seem to enjoy making new conquests. On the otherhand, Alexander did take considerable care in appointing provincial governors and in melding the Persian and Greek elements of his new empire. I think some on this forum undervalue Alexander's civil accomplishments. His decisions layed the foundation for the rise and growth of Hellenism throughout the Middle East.

reddrabs Inactive Member24 Aug 2010 12:12 p.m. PST

"the ancients admired him, since they lived in a Pre-Christian moralist world."

People then, as later, admired him as a power. In fact most admiration came from medieval (post-Christ) authors.

I'm also unsure of this arguments on three counts:
-morality as we see it is not all post-Christian (e.g. read what Confucius [not the later use of writings] did, or see how Socrates would have judged him)
-why can't we judge a person once we accept the moral constraints he had … otherwise we accept psychopaths murdering as that person cannot control or judge his actions by our standards (logic ad absudeum)
-did they admire him or his successes: I admire Ferguson (yes, I'm red)for what he has done but would refuse him as a boss

Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP24 Aug 2010 12:35 p.m. PST

Alexander's empire was no larger than the Persian empire and they managed to maintain control for 200+ years or so I'm not convinced that the challenge was beyond his means.

How long did they control Egypt, which was continually under revolt?

How long did Persia control "Afghanistan", or the Indian provinces?
How long did Persia control mainland Greece?
"Controlling" the Alexandrian Empire, for the 6 or so years it lasted, would be a matter of playing Whack-a-
Mole with the various revolts, much like the PErsian Empire did.
It was more "natural" to have a separate Egyptian entity, andother centered on Babylon, one in Asia Minor, and with a lot of independent/allied states along the borders. It was certainly more peaceful that way.

As for "the growth of Hellenism", what have the Hellenes done for us lately? grin
I would like to see some proof that "Hellenism" was better than "Persianism". I am not convinced. "Oh, sure they gave us plays and … columns, and Aristotle." Democracy? Show me one from that period, and show me what was admirable about it.
You ask a Seleucid about Hellenism, he would have given you a blank stare. For that matter, you would have gotten the same reaction if you asked him about being a "Seleucid". These are all terms invented WAY after the fact, by scholars with far too much time on their hands.

Diadochoi Inactive Member24 Aug 2010 12:49 p.m. PST

How long did Persia control mainland Greece? Zero days. 492BC they captured Thrace and Macedonia, but none of Greece. 490BC invasion ended at Marathon. Xerxes in 480BC did the best and captured most of it (burning Athens), but Salamis and Plataea ended that attempt.

doug redshirt24 Aug 2010 12:51 p.m. PST

What I found interesting is the men who came after him. There were 5 or 6 of them that would have been considered great men if they hadnt lived in the shadow of Alexander.

Scutatus Inactive Member24 Aug 2010 2:26 p.m. PST

Argueably some were greater, assuming you don't measure "greatness" by conquests alone.

Marcus Brutus24 Aug 2010 2:58 p.m. PST

The Persians held Egypt for many of the 200+ years and had reconquered it by the time of Alexander. The outer satrapies were challenging to hold including those of India and Afghanistan. No one is denying that. But they were certainly within the orbit of Persian and now Macedonian power. Certainly, Darius had control of almost all of this region before Alexander conquered them.

Technically, Alexander was head of the Greek League. The Greeks were not conquered people. But I do agree that this is a tiny addition to the Persian empire.

As far as Hellenism is concerned it had lasting historical significance throughout the Middle East. The survival and prospering of the Successor states is predicated upon it as is also the Eastern Roman Empire.

JJartist24 Aug 2010 3:16 p.m. PST

The discussion is not about what Alexander acheived, but what he would have achieved if he had lived. My simple guess is that he would have acheived far less in his later life as he would be unable to be everywhere at once. The story of Harpalus immediately fortold the corruption that was already gripping the conquerors.
My guess is that he would be assassinated, if he wasn't actually poisoned at Babylon by Cassander.. then things would have happened more or less the same…. except that maybe Antipater and Antigonos would be dead…. the Successor struggle in 310 BC may have ended up creating the Demetriad Empire, and the Craterid dynasty, with maybe only the Ptolemaic being on the same historical track…. different names same fragmentation.

CooperSteveOnTheLaptop24 Aug 2010 3:23 p.m. PST

Alexander was a classic gifted alcoholic. it was always going to end in tears.

Yes, the Christian rulers admired Alexander so much that mediaeval princes had to be specifically homilized to view themselves as better than 'orrible pagans like him.

Don't know whether Seleucids would have understoof 'hellenism' but they certainly understood the concept. bit hard to try and force it on the Jews otherwise?

KTravlos Inactive Member24 Aug 2010 6:35 p.m. PST

Alexander would had faced at least one rebellion in the West and one in the East. I think he would had tried overexpaning, got miffed, and then settled down to actually run his Empire. He was not as bad as moderners think he was. He was no hero, or angel, but I think after getting miffed a couple of times, his Apollonian spirit would had led him to try to make the most well-run empire he could. Of course it would break up after him. Alexander was a neccesary but not sufficient condition for the Hellenistic era

KTravlos Inactive Member24 Aug 2010 6:46 p.m. PST

would like to see some proof that "Hellenism" was better than "Persianism". I am not convinced. "Oh, sure they gave us plays and … columns, and Aristotle." ->

the single most important gift of the Ancients Greeks was theater(and its corralory rhetorics). They created it, it is the only ancient greek invention that nobody has tried to claim yet.And theater is divine. "Democracy" was not unknown in the rest of the classial world. Indeed any polity that existed long enough ahd a good chance of becoming some kind of participatory regime to solve collective action problems.

Alexander was an Apollonian spirit, and thus capable of great deeds and also great evils. He IS the Apollonian Spirit. I am not saying he was morally good. Nobody who leads armies is morally good (as per Walzer). He might be relatevly good comapred to other guys, but he was not morally good. I think he was a shrewed politician, machiavellian yes, but shrewed. I also think that he truly wanted to marry the East and West in his empire and dynasty. But like all Macedonians he also was a drunk, and still had too much of the primitveness of the North that fighted his "civilized" of the South.

But I still stand by what I said. Alexander would had tried some expansions that would had been stalled by logistics and rebellions in East and West. The Macedonians had reasons to rebel becasue of his assimiliationist policy. The Greeks because of their love of "freedom", some Persians statraps for power hungry reasons. His most loyal elements at the end were indeed probably persian.

My prediciton would be that after his death the western part of the mepire would break from the eastern, rightfully considering his son as nothing more then a figurehead for Persian interests.

Temporary like Achilles Inactive Member24 Aug 2010 8:50 p.m. PST

Not much love going around for Alexander! He was a great general, conqueror and organiser. As for luck, he made his own. He was probably on the downhill slide: errors of judgment creeping in (Gedrosia), the uncertainties caused by real and imagined disloyalty, death of Hephaestion, wounds catching up with him; yet he still had more he wanted to do, and no one can question his drive, so who knows what he might still have achieved. Think of Tennyson's Ulysses:

Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will,
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

The booze angle gets a bit overplayed (IMO), but that might have become more of an issue had he lived longer. Anyway, a great but flawed man, and a fascinating character study.

Not such a great bloke if he'd killed your family, of course…


Scutatus Inactive Member25 Aug 2010 2:53 a.m. PST

"He is, as all Americans know, precisely why we despise all kings"

Now that is an rather interesting and loaded comment Jeff. I don't recall reading about there being any kings in, say America, during the couple of centuries of U.S expansion and conquest. Yet that didn't stop atrocity after atrocity happening there against both native and African. Instead of one man being a tyrant and oppressor, in America a Republic a whole people of colonists made it a way of life.

So what does kingship have to do with anything? Just wondering.

(not an anti-American comment the British Empire was little better after all, it was, sadly and wrongly, the accepted way of things back then but just wondering how one can point the finger at "kings" and kings only?)

CooperSteveOnTheLaptop25 Aug 2010 4:06 a.m. PST

"They created it, it is the only ancient greek invention that nobody has tried to claim yet."

The Egyptians had ritual drama, but not quite the same 'public' dimension & argument of ideas

Sane Max Inactive Member25 Aug 2010 4:31 a.m. PST

Back on topic – he would have looked less like Colin Farrell, and more like Brendan Gleeson.

And Pompey would have had more reason for feeling he looked like AtG.

JJartist25 Aug 2010 9:13 a.m. PST

Kings are f@#ked up by definition.

Scutatus Inactive Member25 Aug 2010 10:32 a.m. PST

lol :) Thanks for the clarification Jeff. Made me laugh anyway. :D

To be fair and on topic there is little doubt Alexander was starting to become somewhat unhinged by the time he died. If he had lived to decline further, would he still have been remembered as "the great" or as "the tyrant", I wonder.

Using some imagination, what if he realised he was past his best? What if, perhaps in a drunken depression, he committed suicide so that he would "live forever" remembered at the peak of his powers? Possible?

As I stated above, if he had lived on, I do not think he would have done so well as he did in the first ten years. He was past his prime. But unlike Hannibal or Napoleon, there was no chance to see the results of his decline on the battlefield. I think the results would have been the same though.

KTravlos Inactive Member25 Aug 2010 11:16 a.m. PST

ritual drama-> Yes I know that, and not only the Egyptians, but Chiense, Japanese and almost every culture has a from of it, whetehr shamanic dances, represantations of divine events etc. Mideaval Europe had ritual drama as well. But theater, I will be a chauvinist and say that the Ancient Greeks did it first :)

Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP25 Aug 2010 11:25 a.m. PST

Back on topic…
What would have been his justification for invading and conquering Carthage? Just because it was there? Or was there some incident at Tyre that needed avenging?
Or maybe that centuries old conspiracy theory?

JJartist25 Aug 2010 12:09 p.m. PST

I doubt that Alexander had any need for a legitimate casus belli against Carthage. The Tyre support was hardly substantial and seemed to be more "moral support", I'm not aware that Carthage and Persia were on bad terms over the home city's enslavement, but this is something that maybe could be researched.

Alexander's idea of further conquest to the west is based entirely on his inability to figure out what his job was… instead of being a king and securing his kingdom and making his subjects happy and prosperous, he decided that one-dimensional adventurism was his only purpose. Pyrrhus has this same wanderlust as described in his famous dialogue with Cineas, so it was commonly held that Kings need to do these things.. but it is not a fully mature formed idea.

So instead of over-achieving-alcoholism being Alexander's affliction du jour, I reckon it was more militaristic ADD…. the alcoholism was more a product of the undiluted wine, and was thoroughly un-greek in its lack of moderation.

The problem with the fantasy attack on Carthage, is that nobody ever has really launhced a campaing going that direction (towards Kyrene) and gotten to Carthage with a large army and fleet.. The Ptolemies never tried it… Belisarius did it I think, with a smallish army, Arabs did it though, even Rommel couldn't supply his army.

Past his prime? Hmmmm… well he won all his battles. I reckon he would have had to get to Sicily to attack Carthage and to get there he would have to tread where his uncle was assassinated. Who knows maybe his luck runs out at Lilybaeum where his 10000 ship fleet sails off to Africa, gets caught in a storm, sucked into in a vortex of St Elmo's fire, and is teleported to help the Nimitz intervene at Pearl Harbor….


Diadochoi Inactive Member25 Aug 2010 12:30 p.m. PST

His justification (if needed), well look at what happened 50 years or so later. Pyrrhus goes up against Rome in Italy "in defence" of Greek cities there (specifically the Tarentines). A few years later he is in Sicily fighting (and beating) Carthage on behalf of the Greek cities there.

Is it not plausible that these could have been used by Alexander if he had lived? Equally plausible that he could at least have done the equivalent (if not more) than Pyrrhus? You do not have to go the Kyrene route.

JJartist25 Aug 2010 12:58 p.m. PST

Italy would have absorbed Alexander, like Spain absorbed Napoleon… he would only be able to stay there for awhile before he had to turn his attention to new fires in the east. Pyrrhus' adventures reveal how difficult it is in Italy to squelch any one fire before others need to be tended to… No doubt Alexander would have pressed on to Rome and actually besiged her, he had quite the energy for sieges, if he could even get that far.

Plus us western-centric folks always leave off the real casus belli--- would Alexander have let Chandragupta just sheer off the eastern provinces? Maybe Alexander lives only to actually get stomped by 9000 Mauryan elephants*
Now Alexander vs. Chanakya would be a duel of brilliance.

A man is great by deeds, not by birth.

(*What's that stuff between the Mauryan elephant's toes…)

Diadochoi Inactive Member25 Aug 2010 1:14 p.m. PST

Pyrrhus had a lot less resources to draw on than Alexander would have and Rome less than it had 50 years (and Sentinum) later.

Italy and Sicily are also much closer to Macedonian than India. Alexander got his fingers burnt with the mutiny there, I cannot see him going back for round two.

Pages: 1 2