- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
What would the world look like if Alexander The Great lived longer?
Posted on 8/5/14 at 11:37 am
Posted on 8/5/14 at 11:37 am
Say he'd lived to be 60, how different would the ancient world had looked/how would the world look today?
Maybe he would have had time to solidify his territories, keeping them united within a single empire of Macedonia? If he accomplished that there may have been no Rome, at least not the great Roman Empire we know today.
Also I think he eventually would have gone back to conquer India, and if he succeeded I imagine the country of India would look vastly different today.
Maybe he would have had time to solidify his territories, keeping them united within a single empire of Macedonia? If he accomplished that there may have been no Rome, at least not the great Roman Empire we know today.
Also I think he eventually would have gone back to conquer India, and if he succeeded I imagine the country of India would look vastly different today.
7
Posted on 8/5/14 at 11:40 am to Tiger1242
Less filthy muslims in the middle east, that's for sure.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 11:42 am to Tiger1242
When he died, his soldiers were already virtually mutinying against him on account of not being allowed to return home to northern Greece. He would have faced a perilous situation even if he had survived and conquered India. He was facing potential for revolt at home, budding rivals to the West in Rome and Carthage, no heirs resulting in assassination attempts while in his capital in Babylon, ect. It is much harder to rule than it is to conquer. That's something that Alexander would have had to learn. Could he have been successful? Certainly, but he would have needed to have sex with his wife to do so.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 11:51 am to White Shadeaux
Wow
Posted on 8/5/14 at 12:09 pm to kingbob
quote:
When he died, his soldiers were already virtually mutinying against him on account of not being allowed to return home to northern Greece. He would have faced a perilous situation even if he had survived and conquered India. He was facing potential for revolt at home, budding rivals to the West in Rome and Carthage, no heirs resulting in assassination attempts while in his capital in Babylon, ect. It is much harder to rule than it is to conquer. That's something that Alexander would have had to learn. Could he have been successful? .
This is the key, if he kept to his word and brought his troops back to Greece, he would win then over IMO. He would need to prove he was a capable administrator in order to keep his empire together, but that is a challenge for any emperor/empire.
And yes he would need to have sex with his wife
Posted on 8/5/14 at 12:13 pm to Tiger1242
The Mongols would have wiped the floor with them
Posted on 8/5/14 at 12:15 pm to fr33manator
The Mongols wiped the floor with everyone
Posted on 8/5/14 at 12:16 pm to Tiger1242
True. I just got finished with Dan Carlin's "wrath of the khans"
Posted on 8/5/14 at 12:18 pm to White Shadeaux
What, he would have enforced strict bathing regulations?
Posted on 8/5/14 at 12:19 pm to fr33manator
That's the next civilization I'm studying and I can't wait, I've done Ancient Greece, I'm almost done with Rome, then it's Monguls before I do China.
Although, there isn't a ton of info on the Monguls bc they didn't really make permanent settlements or write anything down; although they did rule China for awhile
Although, there isn't a ton of info on the Monguls bc they didn't really make permanent settlements or write anything down; although they did rule China for awhile
Posted on 8/5/14 at 12:39 pm to Tiger1242
However, just bringing his wife back to Greece would upset a lot of people. His wife was considered to be a savage, a harlot, a whore. Bringing her back to Greece would have been a huge affront to the aristocracy. His next 30 years would have probably been a flurry of revolts, encroaching rivals, defections, and assassination attempts. However, if he could deal with all of those successfully, he could have forged a lasting empire from Italy to China.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 1:00 pm to kingbob
His only chance would have been to have endless sex with Rosario Dawson.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 1:08 pm to kingbob
quote:
His next 30 years would have probably been a flurry of revolts, encroaching rivals, defections, and assassination attempts.
That's par for the course for any newly conquered empire, or just empire in general, there's always someone revolting.
From what I have studied you have two viable options once taking over a territory.
Option A: Grant forgiveness to the heads of state and their officials as a sign of good will, impose taxes and recognition of them being your territory, station an army there and appoint the old leader as a governor perhaps, but otherwise allow the place to continue relatively the same. This gains you popularity and good will with your citizens but unfortunately this often leads to more revolt and/or your assassination by someone connected to the previous ruler.
Option B: Go on a murderous spree, kill everyone associated with the old regime, friends, family, women, children, associates, anyone who may still have ties to the old rulers. Kill any resistors and enslave the other citizens, bring in settlers to populate the area, and set up your government there as a military state. This generally is more successful but can give you a bad reputation if done wrong, leading to your assassination.
Anything in between these two extremes generally does not go well, because it gives the people the impression that you are a tyrant, but it also allows many would be rebels to live and plot against you. Augustus Caesar seemed to be adept in killing/enslaving everyone yet spinning it favorably to his citizens so he didn't come off as a murderous tyrant
This post was edited on 8/5/14 at 1:12 pm
Posted on 8/5/14 at 1:20 pm to Tiger1242
quote:
If he accomplished that there may have been no Rome, at least not the great Roman Empire we know today.
Even if Alexander had lived to age 60, he would have died well before Rome's first war with Carthage. That was Rome's first real foray into lands outside of the Italian Peninsula (fought over Sicily).
During Alexander's expanded 60 year life span, I believe Rome would have drawn so little attention to itself that Alexander would see no point to conquering it. After all, no one else from the east had attempted to conquer the peninsula for centuries prior. All the world's wealth and power was situated in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East up until Rome's rise.
I believe Rome would have risen along a similar path and timeline regardless of what happened in Babylon.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 1:22 pm to Tiger1242
I think it would've been pretty much impossible to avoid the split up and the factioning
Posted on 8/5/14 at 1:25 pm to SpqrTiger
quote:
During Alexander's expanded 60 year life span, I believe Rome would have drawn so little attention to itself that Alexander would see no point to conquering it. After all, no one else from the east had attempted to conquer the peninsula for centuries prior. All the world's wealth and power was situated in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East up until Rome's rise.
I agree with that, but with such a giant empire right next to them (assuming he could have kept his empire together had he survived) I'm saying Rome may have never grown into the giant power it became because Macedonia, or whatever it would have been called, wouldn't have let them.
After all one of the most important territories for Rome's ability to pay/feed their growing troops and citizens was Egypt, and that would have been part of Alexander's empire. Of course Rome very well may have just taken the empire apart, or it very well may have broken apart anyway, who knows
Posted on 8/5/14 at 1:27 pm to fr33manator
Posted on 8/5/14 at 1:27 pm to Tiger1242
There is another option: Dont impose any taxes or slavery, set up what be like a military ponzi plot. Promise everyone food, shelter and riches as long as they agree to fight when you ask them. As soon as they are on board, use the same forces already conquered to conquer new land and use whatever riches found to pay for the previous conquered territories. You will lose many in battle, so that just means less you have to pay for. Everyone thinks you are the greatest leader and would fight for you at any given time.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 1:33 pm to TigerSaint1
Yea you see empires do that a lot as well. It never seems to work as well as it should, and still lends itself to eventual revolt. Even worse (for the empire), when it does work it leads to armies fiercely loyal to their leaders and not the empire itself. Which could cause a power struggle and civil war.
Lesson: If you conquer territories, be ready to deal with revolts
Lesson: If you conquer territories, be ready to deal with revolts
This post was edited on 8/5/14 at 1:36 pm
Posted on 8/5/14 at 1:52 pm to Tiger1242
I agree and this is where rules are set in to place, where no other territories are to meet without being sanctioned and attended by the leader of the empire or a representative (which I know they could always go behind your back.) Which leads me to this. Have a mole inside each kingdom that is very highly paid and taken care of that will report back to you with any rumblings of revolt. I know there are still other ways for revolts to happen, but a truly great leader would try and see these issues before they occur and either smooth things over or eliminate the threat.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News