What if Alexander the Great\'s Empire never Fell?
video description
Date: 2022-07-15
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
Naveen
[time stamp 2: 05] I would disagree Alexander would at least take 5-10 yrs to prepare his soldiers to invade Mauryan/Nanda [it might even take more time as the soldiers might still have the fear of the elephants and Mauryan had thousands of them] again why I say Mauryan empire and not Nanda empire because as I said 5-10 yrs ad Alexander entered Babylon 323BCE and 5-10 yrs means from 318 to 313BCE and Mauryan were established in 321BCE, the climate and terrain would not easy and the fact they don't ( the Greeks) have practically no knowledge about India. The Mauryan ruler( Chandragupta) was competent than Darius III and the supply lines too would be difficult
Was Alexander a good general, absolutely yes but he might succumb to the Indians,
The Mauryans might not have that much territories in the west i. e west of Indus river ( as these lands were gain by a treaty with selecuids)
so Alexander and Mauryans might simply have a peace treaty( or continues wars i. e similar to Romans and Persians but both of them had competent rulers so they would probably choose to have a peaceful route) as both powers are incapable of completely defeating each other.
reply
[time stamp 2: 05] I would disagree Alexander would at least take 5-10 yrs to prepare his soldiers to invade Mauryan/Nanda [it might even take more time as the soldiers might still have the fear of the elephants and Mauryan had thousands of them] again why I say Mauryan empire and not Nanda empire because as I said 5-10 yrs ad Alexander entered Babylon 323BCE and 5-10 yrs means from 318 to 313BCE and Mauryan were established in 321BCE, the climate and terrain would not easy and the fact they don't ( the Greeks) have practically no knowledge about India. The Mauryan ruler( Chandragupta) was competent than Darius III and the supply lines too would be difficult
Was Alexander a good general, absolutely yes but he might succumb to the Indians,
The Mauryans might not have that much territories in the west i. e west of Indus river ( as these lands were gain by a treaty with selecuids)
so Alexander and Mauryans might simply have a peace treaty( or continues wars i. e similar to Romans and Persians but both of them had competent rulers so they would probably choose to have a peaceful route) as both powers are incapable of completely defeating each other.
reply
blkgardner
I don't see an Alexandrian Mega-Empire persisting until the Muslim conquests. Rather, the empire would gradually lose territory in the east, first in central Asia and India, and then probably even in Persia. By the early 7th century, the empire would probably be reduced to about the early East Roman Empire. The natural eastern border of a Mediterranean empire is about where the Roman Eastern border was. Only the Ottomans were able to control lower Mesopotamia for a long period of time from a Mediterranean center of power. However, if that boundary is an accident of history, I could see the Alexandrian empire extending into Mesopotamia and southwest Persia, but probably not much beyond that.
I also don't see Rome forming right beside a Greek empire. The Alexandrian empire would probably have stopped a rival empire from dominating the Mediterranean, or at least have delayed a few centuries. I could also see the Alexandrian empire falling to the Romans, or conversely, the Romans losing territory to the Alexandrians. What I wouldn't expect is both empires coexisting right next to each without interacting with each other.
reply
I don't see an Alexandrian Mega-Empire persisting until the Muslim conquests. Rather, the empire would gradually lose territory in the east, first in central Asia and India, and then probably even in Persia. By the early 7th century, the empire would probably be reduced to about the early East Roman Empire. The natural eastern border of a Mediterranean empire is about where the Roman Eastern border was. Only the Ottomans were able to control lower Mesopotamia for a long period of time from a Mediterranean center of power. However, if that boundary is an accident of history, I could see the Alexandrian empire extending into Mesopotamia and southwest Persia, but probably not much beyond that.
I also don't see Rome forming right beside a Greek empire. The Alexandrian empire would probably have stopped a rival empire from dominating the Mediterranean, or at least have delayed a few centuries. I could also see the Alexandrian empire falling to the Romans, or conversely, the Romans losing territory to the Alexandrians. What I wouldn't expect is both empires coexisting right next to each without interacting with each other.
reply
Daniel
Alexander's empire would have been overextended on his death even if he lived another thirty years. There are very few examples of diverse empires based on the conquests of one ruler that really last. Having his son inherit the empire might produce another generation of stability, and maybe you see a string of talented basileis, but eventually something would've pulled it apart. Most likely his son or grandson would've lacked the talent or administrative apparatus needed to govern an empire this big. This would happen regardless of whether Alexander decided to conquer India, or the Mediterranean after formalizing his hold on Persia. He would have to concentrate on holding the empire together and building some kind of administrative state with quite a bit of decentralization in order to keep everything together long enough for a son to inherit. It's even possible that instead of being divided between the generals his empire is split between multiple sons with the rest of history playing out in almost the same way.
reply
Alexander's empire would have been overextended on his death even if he lived another thirty years. There are very few examples of diverse empires based on the conquests of one ruler that really last. Having his son inherit the empire might produce another generation of stability, and maybe you see a string of talented basileis, but eventually something would've pulled it apart. Most likely his son or grandson would've lacked the talent or administrative apparatus needed to govern an empire this big. This would happen regardless of whether Alexander decided to conquer India, or the Mediterranean after formalizing his hold on Persia. He would have to concentrate on holding the empire together and building some kind of administrative state with quite a bit of decentralization in order to keep everything together long enough for a son to inherit. It's even possible that instead of being divided between the generals his empire is split between multiple sons with the rest of history playing out in almost the same way.
reply
Shaarav
Here's a alternate version of history that was how the indians recorded Alexanders invasion of India (I feel like this is partially true as it matches with Alexanders retreat):
- Alexander Finished his battle with king Porus he made Porus one of his regents
- Alexander planned to continue into India, but his soldiers mutinied because the Nanda rallied an army of 300, 000 soldiers from various Indian countries to confront Alexanders army.
- He gave up and was forced to move south slowly eliminating all resistance in the territories he already conquered
So I highly doubt he would be able to conquer India as this was right before the rise of Indias greatest empire, so if he waited long enough to stabilise it would already become impossible. Secondly, even if he did conquer it there is no way he would annex more than a few states as it would be impossible to occupy a country which holds 70% of your empires population with technology at the time.
reply
Here's a alternate version of history that was how the indians recorded Alexanders invasion of India (I feel like this is partially true as it matches with Alexanders retreat):
- Alexander Finished his battle with king Porus he made Porus one of his regents
- Alexander planned to continue into India, but his soldiers mutinied because the Nanda rallied an army of 300, 000 soldiers from various Indian countries to confront Alexanders army.
- He gave up and was forced to move south slowly eliminating all resistance in the territories he already conquered
So I highly doubt he would be able to conquer India as this was right before the rise of Indias greatest empire, so if he waited long enough to stabilise it would already become impossible. Secondly, even if he did conquer it there is no way he would annex more than a few states as it would be impossible to occupy a country which holds 70% of your empires population with technology at the time.
reply
InfernosReaper
Constantine a good Emperor? He was one of driving forces for policies that ultimately pilfered resources from the Western half of the Roman Empire. By taking as much money and men as possible from the West, the West could not stand up to the barbarian threats.
So, no, the Roman Empire's not gonna collapse 100 years earlier. If it actually makes it to Western Empire levels in the first place, it's going to have different leadership by that time and won't be as over-extended with its resources disproportionately distributed in as big a way as the real world counterpart.
Of course, if the Alexandrian Empire to the east proves to be a barrier for expansion(after all, it's never falling, then Rome's gotta expand northward, since southward is mostly the Sahara. That would greatly reduce the barbarian threats to the empire, because the barbarians are well away from Rome and just as likely to attack the Alexandrian Empire, if not more so
reply
Constantine a good Emperor? He was one of driving forces for policies that ultimately pilfered resources from the Western half of the Roman Empire. By taking as much money and men as possible from the West, the West could not stand up to the barbarian threats.
So, no, the Roman Empire's not gonna collapse 100 years earlier. If it actually makes it to Western Empire levels in the first place, it's going to have different leadership by that time and won't be as over-extended with its resources disproportionately distributed in as big a way as the real world counterpart.
Of course, if the Alexandrian Empire to the east proves to be a barrier for expansion(after all, it's never falling, then Rome's gotta expand northward, since southward is mostly the Sahara. That would greatly reduce the barbarian threats to the empire, because the barbarians are well away from Rome and just as likely to attack the Alexandrian Empire, if not more so
reply
Sounak
By and large even though your thoughts on Indian military were true, there were however many isntances of Indian victories, eg- the Hindushahi victories in Afghanistan against Turkic tribes, Chandragupta's defeat of Selucos, the battles of Rajasthan such as of the Paramras, the first battle of Tarain and the dfeat of Mihirkula the Hephthalite at multiple occasions. Even a small state like Thaneswar defeated Kidarite succesors multiple times efore Harshavardhana's rise, as well as Lalitaditya Muktapida against the Tibetan and proto-Turkic raiders north of Kashmir. However the main problem was an inward look and antagonism towards other Indian states such as the Gurjara-Pala-Rashtrakuta clashes over post-Gupta supremacy.
reply
By and large even though your thoughts on Indian military were true, there were however many isntances of Indian victories, eg- the Hindushahi victories in Afghanistan against Turkic tribes, Chandragupta's defeat of Selucos, the battles of Rajasthan such as of the Paramras, the first battle of Tarain and the dfeat of Mihirkula the Hephthalite at multiple occasions. Even a small state like Thaneswar defeated Kidarite succesors multiple times efore Harshavardhana's rise, as well as Lalitaditya Muktapida against the Tibetan and proto-Turkic raiders north of Kashmir. However the main problem was an inward look and antagonism towards other Indian states such as the Gurjara-Pala-Rashtrakuta clashes over post-Gupta supremacy.
reply
ben
I disagree that he went through the gedrosian just to punish his men. He was supposed to rendezvous with his fleet near modern day Gwadar. However, his fleet were not there. In those times that would have been a disaster, theres no email in the 4th century bc. So his options were go back the way he came or go on through the desert. Alexander was never one to retrace his steps and so he marched forward. It is possible I think that punishment was in the back of his mind, but I cant see him treating the soldiers that fought with him from the Hellespont to the Indus like this.
reply
I disagree that he went through the gedrosian just to punish his men. He was supposed to rendezvous with his fleet near modern day Gwadar. However, his fleet were not there. In those times that would have been a disaster, theres no email in the 4th century bc. So his options were go back the way he came or go on through the desert. Alexander was never one to retrace his steps and so he marched forward. It is possible I think that punishment was in the back of his mind, but I cant see him treating the soldiers that fought with him from the Hellespont to the Indus like this.
reply
PSI
Not much point in arguing with a four year old video, but whatever here I go anyway. Paul wasn't the only Christian evangelist in the first century and it's hard to argue with zero doubt that he was even the most successful, he was just the one that did the most writing. Let's not forget that he was crucified in Rome alongside Peter, so Christianity would make it into the western Mediterranean without him like how Thomas went all the way to India in real history. You can still make the argument about Rome's lack of a Constantine not letting it become as widespread though.
reply
Not much point in arguing with a four year old video, but whatever here I go anyway. Paul wasn't the only Christian evangelist in the first century and it's hard to argue with zero doubt that he was even the most successful, he was just the one that did the most writing. Let's not forget that he was crucified in Rome alongside Peter, so Christianity would make it into the western Mediterranean without him like how Thomas went all the way to India in real history. You can still make the argument about Rome's lack of a Constantine not letting it become as widespread though.
reply
Martin
Interesting (though a few stray extrapolations I think.
Arrian does indeed state that Alexander was planning to campaign against Rome. However, it must remembered that he was writing in the 1st century CE and could have been imparting transferred kudos to the Romans by associating them more closely to Alexander (who they were fascinated by.
Have you come across the alternative Alexander Timeline by Professor Toynby? Brilliant romp.
The Empire uses steam engines invented in Alexandria to conquer the world!
reply
Interesting (though a few stray extrapolations I think.
Arrian does indeed state that Alexander was planning to campaign against Rome. However, it must remembered that he was writing in the 1st century CE and could have been imparting transferred kudos to the Romans by associating them more closely to Alexander (who they were fascinated by.
Have you come across the alternative Alexander Timeline by Professor Toynby? Brilliant romp.
The Empire uses steam engines invented in Alexandria to conquer the world!
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
