"If Alexander had lived as long as Philip" Topic

Pyrrhus had less resources:
True that, but how many legions have drowned in the Adriatic?

Emperors need to seem invincible to hang onto power, they do stupid things. Seleucus may have been able to mostly ignore Chandragupta, and then sign a deal with him. Alexander?? Could he allow areas to leave the empire? What precedent does that cause? Napoleon invaded Russia to enforce his embargo on Britain, a lessor threat than Chandragupta would have presented. Of course maybe Alexander would have been smart like Seleucus and ceded the territory he could not hold for elephants.

Still all this fun speculation presumes that Alexander could have found somebody competant and loyal to manage Babylon….while his front line generals went west with him… competant, loyal, and honest provincial governors, oxymoron's no doubt.
JJ

It has always seemed to me that this whole discussion (fun as it is) misses the point of Alexander. Alexander is not revered as a ruler or as a king but as a conquering hero. A hero in the classical sense, not revered for his morals (Alex had few of those) but for his godlike achievements. Alex is the very archetype of the Great Man who is not good, but is Great; he's what Neitsche meant by the Superman.(Yes, I realise Neitsche is cr@p).

Don't let anyone tell you that Alexander's historical legacy was small because his Empire fell apart. By dying at the height of his glory he acted (and still does) as a model for what monomania and genius can achieve. He has inspired us (for good or ill) ever since.

I suspect that if Alex had lived to old age he'd be just another ancient conqueror, mostly forgotten.

My 2c on the original question, I agree with alot of posters that he would have spent most of his time holding his empire together. Look at the native Persian rulers (and Babylonians and Assyrians and…) and the amount of effort they had to exert to keep their empires together.

In general I think he was a great man but a bad king. A good king should realise how important it is to secure the succession. Alexander didn't seem like he had any real interest in this and for an ancient king that's a pretty major oversight.

"Meh!" Works for Allen.

Would be interesting to see how Alexander would deal with the pilum and the Roman tactics.

Alexander,"Ride for the hole, no wait its being filled by another block of infantry, retreat!"

Oh how about this one, Alexander was defeated by Attila then Atilla died of a nosebleed. Not to mention Hannibal on roids with shoulder flashing and twin falcatas.

Sigh.

Pyyrhus using the same troop types (backed up by Tarantine militia or Oscan allies) won against Rome at Heraclea in 280BC and Asculum in 279BC

Following the Battle of Asculum…

The two armies separated; and we are told that Pyrrhus said to one who was congratulating him on his victory, "If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined." For he had lost a great part of the forces with which he came, and all his friends and generals except a few; moreover, he had no others whom he could summon from home, and he saw that his allies in Italy were becoming indifferent, while the army of the Romans, as if from a fountain gushing forth indoors, was easily and speedily filled up again, and they did not lose courage in defeat, nay, their wrath gave them all the more vigour and determination for the war.

Plutarch, Life of Pyrrhus 21.9-10 link

I know, the two battles are where we get the phrase "pyrrhic victory" from.

Somewhere earlier on this thread I said that 50 years previously Alexander would have been able to draw on more resources than Pyrrhus was able to in 280BC and Rome was significantly less powerful (the second Saminite war had just started and look how that went for Rome at the Caudine Forks).

Was the rise of Rome so inevitable?

Was the rise of Rome so inevitable?

Different topic, no.

Pyrrhus was able to defeat Roman armies and almost succeeded in getting them to agree to his terms. The 'allaince' with Carthage made them continue the fight. Pyrrhus then expanded the war to Sicily where he initially had success but then was forced to leave. The he was heavily defeated by Rome.

If Alexander had been involved fifty years earlier he would have had better allies than Pyrrhus, and Rome would have been weaker. But after initial successes there is no telling how involved Alexander would have gotten with Italy.

If Rome had been knocked out, then the Gauls would have needed to be pacified. Would the Etruscans join with Alexander or ally with Rome- or remain neutral. Would the Oscans and Etruscans and Hill tribes wish to trade Roman rule for Macedonian?? Would Alexander set up Republics and allow elections then leave ??

JJ

Apples and watermelons.

What were Roman tactics in 320BC? Did they even have the pilum then? How big was Rome then? Had anyone even heard of it, except as an obscure village up Etruria way? I am sure his intelligence department had heard of Rome. After all, it was one of those many little towns in the "Italia" packet.

Were Alexandrian Macedonian and Successor pike tactics the same?

I don't think Alexander lay there on his deathbed thinking "As soon as I get better, I should go and deal with those Romans!"

JJ – I agree even if Alexander would have gone against and defeated Rome he would have probably ended up having to fight the same peoples, Gauls, Samnites, Oscans etc that Rome fought as they would have resented any foreign rule.

John – Somebody here might correct me, but Roman tactics did not change significantly over the 50 year period we are talking about. Certainly the "wargames lists" change AFTER the changes made in response to Rome fighting Pyyrhus. Rome at the time was expanding, but held a much smaller territory link but in 325-323BC it was winning the war against the Samnites (so see the doubling of territory on the map).
As far as I know EARLY successor pike tactics and Macedonian were the same (they became more static later on) and Pyyrhus…late to take the kids to school…more later…

Back again.

John – I don't think Alexander was planning to "deal with those Romans", but he was about to attack Arabia and then was going to go west.

My take on the original question would have been:

I think the resources he had built up would have meant Arabia could have been conquered. He then would have turned west and/or been drawn in "to defend" Greek city states in Italy and/or Scicily.

He would have faced rebellions during this hypothetical 14 years of additional rule and these would have put a serious limitation on what he could have persuaded his troops/generals/advisors to do in the west and on the resources to do it, but I am not convinced the empire would have disintergrated (look how long the Persians held nearly the same area), though the far east might have split off (see earlier comments about whether Alexander would have gone east again as far as India).

I think he would have been more successful in the west than Pyyrhus (more resources vs smaller more fragmented enemies), but I am not convinced that his western conquests would have been substantial due to the reasons above.

After his death, at some point, his empire would have fragmented and as John said earlier the final historical split has a certain geographic sense to it.

The biggest effect I would have predicted would have been on the rise of Rome. This was a critical period in the expansion of Rome. If Alexander's input would have been to suppress this (either by taking Rome or just by preventing expansion) the history of the west would be very different. Carthage would have been the single dominant power in the Western Med, Italy may have stayed fragmented, who would have expanded into Gaul, Germany, Britain?

My problem is that most of my library on Rome is from Pyyrhus to the conquest of Britain and I don't know how much it would have taken to influence Rome's ascent. Clearly not much, but how much is not much?

" 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."

I agree entirely with the above