What if Alexander the Great had survived another ten or so years?

Question

What do you think would have happened to his Empire and how much further would have it expanded. Would we be talking about Alexander's Empire as being ONE OF the biggest Empires in the history of mankind?

Answer 1

I like these questions!  Good question!  I have heard a lot of theories about what would have happened had he lived longer.  

One of my history professors at university thought he might have turned west and conquered parts of Western Europe (or maybe the whole continent!).  Certainly he would have consolidated the territories he held and might have pushed further east deeper into India.  

I agree with you the size of his Empire would have rivalled that of the Mongol Empire.

Answer 2

Christopher b...Has a good article there..i like what he has bought up.....and to be honest..IF Alexander ahd lived for say 30 more years...HIS passion would have been unstobable to conqure more lands..as he told aristole...i will conqure all lands to be under one banner..that was his thirst.hence the intermarriages in persopolis.I really dont think he would have spent too much time in india..not more than five years..not becuase they had elephants but because the race was diffrent..they where darker people and i would have said this played a key role in thinking that these people are the living dead ..unquoreable ..when one fight s diffrent race one loses  thier stability..all his  men would have been revolting and scared to fight them cause they where dead already to them ..so if by chance he did conqure india ..iam sure the sinos race would have done what i said obove as with the indians.if he retreated from india i would have said he would have conqured most of the mediteraian and the african top coast and thats about all..how ever i sense that aleaxnder was also a future visionary.and would have built terricf infracstature,,that would have been in use to this day.. he would have in his later years encouraged  science.. set up universties..and improve life for all people..even intoroduce a sort of pension for the elderly..and would have made medical break throu,s and esatblished hospitals for all.  improve military  hardware and tactis...

Answer 3

His son, Alexander IV, would probably have survived to adulthood, meaning that his Empire would remain united under one king.

Just before his death, Alexander was building up a fleet to attack Carthage with (the fleet was used in the Civil War between his successors), and he definitely had the intent of upholding Greek control of Sicily. Carthage probably would fall to him, and he might have moved on to fight the Romans.

Livy certainly thought this would be the case. In book 9 of Ab Urb Condidta, he speculates what would have happened. Naturally he assumed Rome would win. He wrote "I do not dispute that Alexander was an exceptional general, but his reputation is enhanced by the fact that he died while still young and before he had time to experience any change of fortune ...What was it that exposed [great men of the past] to reverses and misfortunes but the length of his life, as recently in the case of Pompey the Great?"

...

"M. Valerius Corvus, C. Marcius Rutilus, C. Sulpicius, T. Manlius Torquatus, Q. Publilius Philo, L. Papirius Cursor, Q. Fabius Maximus, the two Decii, L. Volumnius, and Manlius Curius. These men of a colossal mold who would have confronted him if he had first turned his arms against Carthage and then crossed over into Italy later in life. Every one of these men was Alexander's equal in courage and ability, and the art of war..." Livy goes on to argue that Alexander had grown effeminate and weak in the East, plus he would be fighting in enemy territory, and would be able to bring no more than 34,000 troops. Livy also argues that the Roman legions were more flexible than the Macedonian phalanx and would have therefore defeated Alexander.

However, I don't know if Livy is right. The flexible Roman army he was familiar with was from the time of Caesar, while the Romans that Alexander would have fought would be 300 years more primitive, and most of their tactics had not been perfected yet. The Romans barely survived the invasion of Pyrrhus of Epirus, who wasn't one-tenth the general Alexander was. Additionally, Alexander's Macedonians were experienced fighters, while the Roman would have no experience fighting such hardened foes. It seems to me that Alexander would easily have won.

I don't think his Empire would expand much more, though, because of its sheer size. The Eastern satraps were constantly revolting, and simultaneous revolts in the far East and far West would have been hard to quell. To make matters worse, Macedonian domestic politics was infamously bloody, and assassinations and civil wars within the ruling family probably would take place. Perhaps his Empire, within a few generations, would have been split the way it was historically. It seems hard to imagine such a vast and multi-ethnic empire could stay in one peace very long. Even the Romans had trouble with their Empire, and they had the advantage of a much slower, steadier expansion spread out over centuries, giving plenty of time for consolidation.

Answer 4

Given ten more years, he could have reached China.

Answer 5

Well I think you would have seen one or a combination of three possible alternate time lines. All are assuming the conclusion (myself as well) that Alexander would have faced no opposition that could have defeated him militarily at the time. Thus:

1.) Continued East and taken more of India and into the Far East running into the Chinese or Kazakhs.

2.) Stopped to consolidated his holds and revamp his armies and Greek/Persian allies before moving on to new conquests.

3.) Turned back to capture the Med. Sea nations after seeing or choosing not to go further than India after setting sites on the Himalayas.