It's fun to speculate things like this :)

I think your right in that China would've stopped him. Also the distanses were getting more and more of an issue: messages didn't travel that fast, and someone at home might've disided that he's far away, can't stop a revolution.

And even if he'd lived long enough to continue on his campaing the empire would have fallen apart just as fast after his death

Fantastic thread. I studied this at uni, so I'll get back to you later once I've dug out some notes. But I strongly believe that Alexander would have been forced to turn back and not carry on.... Explanation later.

I remember (vaguely) he succeeded in defeating one Indian kingdom/army but at heavy cost. His men never saw elephants before and longed for home. So, to be a bit pessimistic, I don't think he would've succeeded in conquering the Indian subcontinent.

History tells us that shortly after his death his Empire was divided in four struggling states. But even under this condition, the spread of Greek culture, now known as Hellenization, was massive. I think if Alexander had lived a longer life and perhaps produced offspring he would have consolidated his Empire built on the ruins of the Persian Empire.

As for the Romans, that would mean bad luck since he'll probably would've organized a campaign to the West.

how long did Ghengis Khan live? into his 60s. His sons divided his territory into four parts.

I'm sure something similar would have happened to Alexander's kingom.
As far as i'm aware the Chinese and Roman empires did have embassies with each (in the area of Afghanistan) if not the same direct contact and sharing of cultures.

As far as i'm aware Alexander controlled his empire by placing the locals he defeated back in power (and why would you bother to rebel when the guy will just come back and beat you a second time... epecially if you're still running things - someone correct me if i'm wrong - it wouldn't have been too hard to raise/train a new army to continue, along with the greek veterans who wanted to continue)

What cultural/militrary effect this invasion would have had on china (which wasn't always strong and united) would have depended on the conditions there at the time (which i don't know enough about to comment)

Alexander WAS forced to turn back, he recognised that he was not going to go further than the river indus. Even if it was a logistical possibility, his men would not have stood for it. Btw, even if he had moved through India, its not like there is an easy way to get to China, what with the Himalyas and all...

But there are two actually realistic questions that can come from speculation. Would he have conquered West? Crushing the fledgling states of Rome and Carthage? I would say probably not. Conquest is usually driven by economics, and the west just isn't as rich as the east, and not worth the trouble. I can see some problem areas like Crete, Rhodes, and Thrace getting subjugated, because Alexander had to skip them. People only talk about Rome being destroyed because of the obvious consequences for history.

The second question is, had he he had a long life, would his empire have been able to stabilise and a succession and dynasty established. His wife was pregnant with his first son when he died, so the wait was probably going to be long. But given how large and successful some of the diadochi kingdoms were even with massive civil war, I think it would be reasonable to say he could have shored up his empire into a stable super power.

China was in the middle of the Warring States Period, so there was no central government. But that does not mean that Alexander what have gotten far. He did not have enough men. His experienced and professional Macedonian army was shrinking. It is hard to see how Alexander could have fought his way through India if it was also bunch of small states. Alexander excelled at toppling big empires, so if northern India at the time of Alexander's death was ruled by the Nanda Empire, he may very well have succeeded. This may be especially so if the Nanda empire was conquered just two years after Alexander's death and supplanted by the Maurya Empire. Chandragupta Maurya, its founder, was only 20 years old. But Alexander's troops had mutinied right before they would have confronted the Nanda Empire, so their resolution was long-lost. (By the way, here is Asia at the time of Alexander's death: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Asia_323bc.jpg)

I can't seen an Alexander stopping without being stopped- he just wasn't that kind of person, he lived for it, to boldly go (and conquer) where no Macedonian/Greek had gone before.

He may have come home for a while, rested and rebuilt his army, but he would've been back out there...

And I just thought of another people he might've tried to go against, one that might seem trivial but would've been HUGE-

The Huns/their predecessors.

First- imagine the battle! Alexander's phalanxes, the greatest ever, and his Companion Cavalry against well-trainewd horse archers and light infantry. Obviously the light infantry would've been skewered like marshmallows, there's no way they defeat the phalanx... but the horse archers? Riding towards them and shooting them? The phalanx was heavily armored, and the back rows had their pikes so as to sheild and defelect arros and javelins... still...

But say Alexander won, say he did what he always did and found a way to beat another wildly different opponent.

What THEN?

Because if Alexander then died and his empire broke up (even if he was older, no man could likely have unified such a huge empire) what then happens a few hundred years later, with Rome, assuming Rome still rises?

After all, it was Goths and Vandals and the like, the Germanic tribes, that ultimately destroyed Rome... but many were driven inside to hide from the Huns. And Rome fought Atilla and lost a great deal fighting him, weakening them more; when they finally won in 451 at Chalons, that was the last hurrah for Rome, because then the Tribes were free to attack Rome.

Suppose Rome, still weakened, never had to face those Huns? Some Germanic tribes may never have come in, and if they came to attack, Rome may yet have had the power to repel them, since they didn't have to fight the Huns. Still very wobbly, but supposing Rome did fend off the Germanic Tribes, and lasted longer, if not still falling later on...

IMAGINE EUROPE. With the Germanic Tribes beaten, maybe badly, does their language go with them, and German and English never come to be? Do the German States and the Facions in Britain never come together to form Germany and England, respectively, as we know them? No Germany and England, and all that implies... if the Franks are defeated, what of the French, of France?

Those great nations never rising... and if Rome fell later, the Dark Age for Europe might've come later- we in the West might be a full century behind the Chinese (well, ven more so than today.) ;) Or what if a future conquer (Ghengis Kan, or an ancestor?) destroyed Rome? How, for lack of a better word, FUCKED would the West be then?


And all if Alexander, years ago, eliminated a people as a threat for the future Rome...

China was to far and to large. The only way to get there by land would be by what we call the silk road. India I agree could have been taken, but only after he raised a fresh army. The west would have been safe for few generations till it became develped enoff to be worth while. If he had survived, the durability of any empire would depend on the ability of his son to impose his will on the diverse and large empire. In the long run the Parthians invading into South Asia would have been major threat.

Well the Huns first appeared maybe six centuries later...

But if you just mean Alexander fighting Central Asians, then he did purposefully avoid them in real life. He excelled at fighting large decisive battles with large kingdoms.

Why would Alexander invade Germany? Totally pointless.

A better question would be, what would have happen if Quinctilius Varus had not taken three legions into an ambush at Teutoburg. With western Germany under Roman control, the northern borders shorter, and rest of central and Northern Europe under direct culture and economic contact with Rome. Europe would have been much different than it is today.

I think, if that mosquito that evening hadn't bitten Alexander, that a lot would be different. We're speculating, so I'll go ahead and speculate:



He shores up his army by instituting new training practices or something like that. This was an innovative guy - I think he could've handled bad morale. So after shoring up his army for a few years on the banks of the Indus - he pushes through into northern India. The Nanda Empire would fall beneath him just as it fell for Chandragupta. And poor little Chandragupta, assuming he was born, would probably have just lived the normal life of an illegitimate child in Alexander's India. Doubtless, Alexander would have not gone into south India, sparsely populated over the Deccan Plateau, so he would have passed it over just as he did Arabia, Africa, and the West.

So, between the coast and the Himalayas Alexander would have driven east through the wet delta areas of Bangladesh and Burma. This would have been testing, what with the inevitable disease. I would say he had about a 60% chance of not being debilitated by this physical challenge.

Anyway, if he had good knowledge of the area from guides and such, he would know that he should turn north as soon as he was past the mountains to better climates, out of the jungle. So he would also have avoided SE Asia. Had he tried to follow the coast the whole way, he would surely have been destroyed by the jungle and the disorganized natives. No question about that.

Had he gotten lucky and turned north though, or at least just continued east, he would have made it to the coast near Hainan. At this point, I say he would have used whatever tactics he knew how to build armies and insurrections against kingdom after kingdom northwards. His control of China would be minimal though, no matter how successful he was.

Thus, assuming all of that I give three possibilities, starting with the least likely:

1) He makes it to China and subjugates it. He gets lucky and adapts quickly, becoming an Emperor in the style of the Qin who he preceded. Thus he is China's unifier and first emperor in recent memory. If he got really lucky, he would able to deify himself as such a strange looking foreigner... but that's doubtful. The extent to which he could have ruled everything he conquered to that point would be limited. It would be as if he had died, and I think it would have split up much as it did in reality. Thus, China would have been unified about a hundred years sooner, and everything else would have stayed the same, except that India would be a Hellenized state, with no Mauryan Empire. You would then have cultural exchange all the way from France to China. It would have an effect similar to Ghengis Khan's rule. However the overall Hellenization would have much more of a Chinese influence since China would be the one holding the cards. Also, with SE Asia and India in power vacuums, China would have had an easier time expanding. It would have, in effect, a cultural and technological head start over and above the Han dynasty. However I also think Christianity would have spread across India to China... so you try to figure how that would have worked out. The further cultural ties west to east would have meant states like Rome would look east much more than west, possibly meaning that western Europe never would develop into what it eventually became. The languages would totally different, with Latin probably never developing like it did, and Greek being much more dominant. When Islam came into being... IF it came into being, it would have a much harder time since Christianity would have been much more widespread by that late century.

That would basically mean a couple of things for the modern world: No Columbus, since the Silk road wouldn't have been disrupted by Islam. If America was discovered at all, it would have been by frontiersmen like the Vikings (who I expect would have not been any different) or the Chinese. South America would be a lot of Africa was, a dark continent not explored until late.

Basically everything would have been different. There would not be any western civilization. It would be Hellenized/Chinese civilization.

Option 2)
He makes it TO China but not INTO China due to disease and whatnot. This would have, I think, the same effect, as it would force China to unify. It would just mean that China would not be Hellenized as much, and that there would be a power vacuum in India that China and the West (more like the near east, Greece) would try to fill. You would have a bi-polar world, east and west... difficult to say how that would work out.


Option 3) Is that he would have been distracted by something at home and withdrawn, perhaps looking west, but most likely just ruling in the style of a Persian Emperor. You would just have a repeat of history with a slightly stronger tilt to the near East.

orathaic: 'how long did Ghengis Khan live? into his 60s. His sons divided his territory into four parts.'

For the Mongolian tribes it was tradition to split territory between the sons (of the Khan).

obiwanobiwan: 'to boldly go (and conquer) where no Macedonian/Greek had gone before.'

Yay, Grandaddy!

@Thucidides:

I like your thoughts here... but I seeone large flaw, one nation you don't adress enough, I think-

Little ol' Rome.

Think of it- a hundred years after Alexander died, roughly, is when Rome really began to rise; if we assume he lives to a ripe age, then he most certainly would have seen Rome start to gain in strength, even if just the subtle first steps she took. What's more, Rome always swelled to prowess (until the end, or course) at the idea of rival nations. Carthage, the Gallic tribes, the Goths and such late in the empire- ach time an enemy looked like it could hurt Rome, Rome proved WHY it was such a great and powerful empire, WHY its fighting forces was so great and, until the end, won those conflicts.

What if Alexander felt Rome to be a threat- or, perhaps more likely given their semi-paranoid state at times, the reverse, Rome feeling threatened by Alexander?

What if Rome met Alexander- another titanic clash, up there with Greece-Persia, Alexander-the East, England-France, Axis-Allies...

?

Who would win there? Assuming That Alexander took India (I think it safe to assume if his health hadn't stopped him and his army permitted, India would've fallen easily to his might) he'd then have to turn back and it's a long way to Rome... and first he'd have to HEAR of Rome, and if she was threatening him, or if he decided to attack them...

It'd all take some time.

And, what's more, it'd be, yet again, ANOTHER different kind of enemy for Alexander. Alexander fought in the West a bit, at least learned there, but he made his reputation taking on armies in the EAST-

And here is arguably the greatest Western Army ever. The Roman Army, at its height (which isn't at Alexander's time, but bear with me, getting there) ranks with Napoleon's forces, the English Navy, the Nazis (sadly and disgustingly) the American Army of the early Cold War (say about WWII-1965, just before Vietnam screwed it all up) the Spartans, and, of course, Alexander's Army.

In short, if there was some (albeit twisted) Hall of Fame for Armies and Empires, Rome and her at-her-height Legionaries would be inagural class inductees... and so would Alexander's forces.

But here we have an interesting scenario- two heavyweights, potentially, Alexander vs. the Roman... REPUBLIC. And the pre-Punic Wars Republic at that, it'd just begun its rise right around when Alexander died, just started to become more and more dominant around Italy.

So say that Alexander conquers India, comes back for a while, raises and army, and then marches West... getting to Rome in, say, 7-10 years after he, in real life, died.

What does ROME do?

I said Rome always rose to the occasion of an invader up to the very end, always raised their strength a notch or two and put just a bit more strenght into those sword thrusts, an extra 10 yards or so on those javelin throws, an extra good ecision or two by a field centurion that exploits a weakness... that's Rome- but not yet.

The question I'm asking is- would they have possibly started to become that EARLIER in the face of Alexander? Would that Roman mentality show its head and manifest the wa we know it earlier than it really did?

And I said Alexander fought primarily EASTERN armies- here's a Western one, and so it's very different. The Persians had light infantry, Scythe Chariots, light and heavy cavalry... Rome would've been far different. Rome, even at that time, would've had legions- albeit the most rudimentary and template-like form of the legions, and they would not, likely, yet have their distinctive Tower Shield and Pila Javelin and Gladius sword and armour... all those little nuances that made the Legionary so amazing as an individual soldier and so destructive in a group.

Heavy infantry and cavalry- like Alexander. Rome would've had certainly greener troops, and greener tactical ideas, but they would've been a striking change- Alexander won many battles because of his brilliance manuvering, because he could use his forces to exploit the weaknesses in formations, but also in the enemy units themselves. He used Sword and Shield tactics- his phalanx the sheild that kept the enemy going anywhere and stopped most offensives by the enemy, and his Cavalry the sword, slashing through them.

Rome has heavier armour, is closer to the Greek style... closer to Alexander.


Three scenarios I see, assuming Alexander vs. Rome starting with the likeliest:

-Alexander marches West, and Rome sees him coming. They, 100 years early, swing into their Punic War mentality- someone's coming to challenge our dominance, let's raise our game and hit back hard. Rome raises an army that is somewhere between the army she had that beat Hamilcar in the First Punic War and their standard one of the time had Alexander died when he was supposed to. In short, they're the early Legionaries, but not the Scipio-Caesar-upt-to-200 AD mighty men that could beat nearly any oranized army. Still, it's enough to slow Alexander down. Alexander makes headway, but with decent losses. He seeks to maybe see if he can't have himself anointed as he had been before in other nations, but Rome, being even at this age proud, won't have it. Alexander fights and fights, and as he goes he adapts to the Roman style more and more, while the Roman legions grow stronger as a result of fighting Alexander- but not strong enough. Without an Alexander-worthy general (Caesar, one of his men like Marc Antony, or even a Scipio) Rome cannot win. Rome herself is taken, and the Republic breaks. Alexander, however, is, as a result of the heavy fighting, stopped- his army has been battered by the brutal war, and his conquests end there, and so too do the Roman ideals of the Republic, and even the seeds of ideas in the Empire, die. Alexander dies at a good age, and his empire fractures. India, with no clear-cut historical heir and no great leader in the wings, becomes a vacuum of culture for long, essentially an extension of whatever is the strongest power around it, and the ideals of of India never arises. The Middle East, too, is left fractured, but somewhat united in its now Hellenistic views, and become almost like Arabic bersions of the Greek city-states. Islam arises, but cannot catch on, as the areas are so fractured that its proponents can't make the sell. Christianity NEVER RISES because of the lack of Rome- it, too, is Hellenisitc, and fractures into parts, with even the Penninsula herself not being united for centuries to come. No Roman rule means that even if the disciples of Christianity and the Man Himself still do exist, the, much like Muhammad in the Middle East, can't find their audience- without Rome and a great Empire to take on, the romanticsim that made Christianity a sell fails, and so does the idea. Interestingly, in the abscence of Rome, and with Hellenistic Greece-Macedon-Middle Eastern States content by themselves (mostly) the Tribes of the area take root much earlier and in different ways than before. Gall remains Gallic- the Franks never come, and if they do, they merely mingle there. The result of this power vacuum in the West is a stronger Germanic Tribe nation- a "Germany" arising FAR earlier and encompassing FAR more lands and peoples (The Prussian States, Denmark, what would've been the eastern half of France.) This is THE European "power" (united, but nowhere as strong as Rome would've been or the Hellenistic States and the East are) for centuries, and Europe develops strangely- not like China, a dynasty and internally focused and thus advanced, and not like the would-be Rme, an imperical continent that focuses on granduer of states and religion. Europe becomes a psuedo-land, not quite at peace and prosperous, not quite at war and building and destroying and learning from it all along the way. No Christianity means Judaism remains stronger in Europe (no Christians to kill them off or hold them down in those 1,500 years or so) but not too strong, and not nearly the force Christianity was in uniting the land. The East and Greece-Macedon-Middle East remain the strong areas, and dominate for at least the next millenium, and Western thought and philosophy and literature, when it does arrive, has no "English" or "French" or "German" or "Italian" flavors and none of those ideals, but rather time-strengthened Hellenism and a mix of Germanic and some Judaic values... in short, a much Greeker world in the West. The East still is the more dominant area, however, and remains to this day.

-Alexander marches into Rome and finds himself against a Roman force that's brought itself together fAR faster than history had it before. Rome has rallied the surrounding areas, and Alexander, after many years, is stopped, a la Hannibal. He made some headway, and even entered the north of the boot, but never got to Rome. He dies at a good age, and his empire fractures as stated in the first option. However, his invasion has a VERY unintended effect- Rome and her allies suddenly find themselves thrust into the spotlight and more powerful than in "real" history. In short, the Roman expansion has been jumpstarted- with a twist. Rome won, but won with allies. As a result, Rome expands, but as she does, she does so with those allies, almost like Athens and the Athenian League. Eventually, like Athens, Rome swallows her allies and becomes the power we know it to be. Carthage is defeated again, but this time, against a more powerful Rome, the task is easier, and one War is enough. Hannibal is never born, and Rome never faces that threat. Rome, true, somewhat, to real life, takes advantage of the power gap left by Alexander and takes Greece, and expands as she did- just earlier, and with the Romans a bit altered in ideals, as they assimilated their allies (namely the tribes around Italy, the Gauls, even a bit of the Germanics, etc.) and thus their ideals. Rome thus expands, but also is absent somewhat of the intense pride the Romans had before. This more moderate Empire stops exanding after a while, and is a bit different in shape- England is never reached, Germany is part of the Empire, and the fringes are all a bit shorter. In short, exansion ourgiht is traded a tad for solidarity. But because this empire is more Republic-like, and never develops into the mighty, brutal force of Caesar and the Emperors, it eventually lacks cohesion, and fractures. Worse, with no great army now to hold the Huns, all the small kingdoms formerly of the Republic are trampled. The West thus enters the Dark Ages, but with two key differences. No Greco-Roman presence was ever truly strong as was in "real" history in those areas, so instead of a Renaissance, we get a gradual growing of the barbarian and Roman remnants of culture into a new sort of Western culture- but this takes longer than the "real" Renaissance, and the West is again behind the East. Also, as again no Roman Imperical policies made Christianity out to be great, it never takes hold as a religion, and instead is merely a cultural aspect of the Penninsula, a morality tale that forms part of THEIR culture over time, but with no Empire to spread it, and with the Hunnic invaders shutting Europe off from itself, it never develops or unites or divides or spreads like it did in "real" history.

-Rome somehow DOES manage to get so lucky as to have a Caesar/Scipio-like general to lead its army, which is again not quite up to Punic War standards but still far further along than it would've been without the threat of Alexander. The battle itself is a Waterloo- the legendary general of the day, Alexander, somehow is beaten by a lesser force and a lesser-know general, and loses the day badly enough to stop his campaign. Alexander cannot stomach this, cannot handle the defeat, as in all his years he's never experienced defeat in battle, let alone one so devastating and ending to a whole campaign. He goes home to Macedon with what troops he still has, but has lost his formlerly legendary will, and dies, possibly of suicide. His empire THIS time still fractures as before- with a key exception. Rome, having beaten Alexander, and even in their day knowing just how legendary he is and how monumentous their victory is, feels suddenly HUGELY powerful, and begins to push East- to take the land formerly of Alexander. This is not a one-man job, and this does not take place over decades, but over a couple centuries- the Roman Empire, essentially, has begun early, and has begun not with a mixture of Roman and Barbarian, but with the Romans pure and simple as we know them, just as ambitious and arrogant and talented in the field and in the Forum. It does come to dictators eventually, and Rome truly has its Empire a few centuries before it happened "for real." The shape of the Empire is different, too- hugely important to the future. This Rome extends its power Eastward, following the poer gap left by Alexander; Greece and Macedon, sapped from Alexander's campaign that this time ended with his army broken, fall within a few years of Roman invasion, and Egypt in subsequent years follows suit. Rome still pushes eastward, as it did before, only now it faces a Parthia/Persia that is not the army that stopped it hundreds of years later in "real" history, but rather an army with far lighter infantry and lighter cavalry. Rome doesn't go as far as Alexander, but goes farther than in "real" history, stretching into what is now Iraq and Iran before finally being halted a third into Afghanistan. But the Rome in the West is even more shocking. Carthage now does NOT fight Rome- its rise now correspodns with ROME being in the area where it grew to be a trading power around the Eastern Med. in "real" history, and thus it trades with Rome now, and Rome, large already and not needing to go out of its way as it benefits from the trade, never fights Carthage, and Spain and North Africa west of Egypt is untouched by Rome. Gaul is still taken, but less of it, as all Rome seeks to do is to stamp out the Gall attacks along its border, not take it outright. The same holds true for Roman expansion into the north- it is strong, and this time, as its units are lighter and the Empire strong enough, parts of West Germany are taken, but still Rome is topped up noorth, and further expansion up there and England are never touched. Rome lasts longer this time, as it does not now clash with the barbarians it once did, and when it DOES fall, it leaves a very different Europe. Christianity now DOES rise, and DOES spread- but Eastward, as Rome expanded, and thus Spain, Northern France, and England are left, for most of the Middle Ages, Chistian-less, and England is much more Celtic than it currently is. Further, the East-Rome now remains strong, but France/Spain/England remain weaker by contrast. Finally, the Christianity that rises is more of a civil resposnse than a religious one, as Hellenism remains strong and porseprous long into the subsequent centuries, and Islam never takes hold as its areas are Hellenistic. Rome-China is balanced, but Spain/England/Norther France are weaker than in "real" history, and, fo course, the Americas develop totally different, with European expansion coming so late America as we know it either never develops, or would be being born right about now, 2000's...