+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: How would the world have been different if Alexander the Great hadn't existed?

  1. #1
    Elephant CRSP's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Perfidious Albion
    Posts
    936

    Default How would the world have been different if Alexander the Great hadn't existed?

    If Alexander the Great hadn't existed, how would the world today have been different? Would the Persian Empire have continued to expand west, consuming the majority of Europe? Was there anybody else in a position to stop them? Was Alexander's main legacy the defeat of Darius at Gaugamela, or was it more the spread of Greek civilisation?
    Les sanglots longs des violons de l'automne blessent mon coeur
    D'une langueur Monotone

  2. #2
    Member
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    63

    Default Re: How would the world have been different if Alexander the Great hadn't existed?

    Quote Originally posted by CRSP
    If Alexander the Great hadn't existed, how would the world today have been different? Would the Persian Empire have continued to expand west, consuming the majority of Europe? Was there anybody else in a position to stop them? Was Alexander's main legacy the defeat of Darius at Gaugamela, or was it more the spread of Greek civilisation?
    Achaemenid Persia was probably well past further expansion. Despite the recent reconquest of Egypt it was in fact deeply in decline, with a pretty serious structural fiscal crisis that probably wasn't reversible absent either an absolute genius ruler coming to the throne or a massive revolution/civil war that shattered the state anyway ( Alexander looted a truly immense fortune from the central treasury, which he and his warring successors then spread far and wide paying for mercenaries and the like ). Darius III was the last of his once numerous line and not, it appears from the records, especially brilliant. I expect the state would have become increasingly ramshackle and would have begun to fragment on the fringes.

    Alexander's legacy is harder to suss out. Certainly he set the stage for some of the events in Republican Rome, such as the inheritance of Pergamum and fired the imagination of such notables as Julius Caesar. But whether it really changed the trajectory of Rome in a fundamental way is hard to argue cogently. The weak Hellenization of the east was certainly his legacy and lingered as a significant presense in places like Syria for many centuries - but much of that ultimately proved ephemeral.

    The problem is distance, really. A hundred or even two hundred years after Alexander's death you could have said his impact on the world was huge. At this remove and looking at the modern world it is hard to point to outcomes which Alexander is directly responsible for. Other than the fact of Alexander himself, who considering how large he looms ( and has loomed since his death ) in western history, inspiring and captivating dozens of generations of would-be gloryhounds, conquerors and the just plain history-obsessed, probably counts for something .

  3. #3
    Oliphaunt Rube E. Tewesday's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    7,743

    Default Re: How would the world have been different if Alexander the Great hadn't existed?

    As usual, I loved your post Tamerlane. I think it's an interesting point. Probably Persia would have fell, and Rome rose, with or without Alexander. But the whole idea of Alexander....no doubt there were megalomaniacs before. But he really set the gold standard for megalomaniacs, with no limit to his ambition, and the concept of spreading a civilization on his bloody way -- how many men who would have overwise just been petty tyrants were inspired to become major tyrants by his example?

  4. #4
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Buckinghamshire, UK
    Posts
    488

    Default Re: How would the world have been different if Alexander the Great hadn't existed?

    I agree with you, Rube, but I think it is disingeniuous to suppose that the concept of contintental, cross-culture control would not have occurred in that era without that influence. The continent was ripe for it and the technology being developed at the time was perfect for the reaping.

    On that basis, I disagree with Tamerlane that Alexander "certainly" influenced Julius Ceaser. But I do agree that the influence - present or not - had little to do with Rome's vision of the future of the known world. And had Nero not been so unfortunate, his vision may well have created an empire that lasted hundreds of years further - maybe longer if they had crossed the Atlantic in any serious way.
    Anything is possible if you use enough lubricant.

  5. #5
    Member
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    63

    Default Re: How would the world have been different if Alexander the Great hadn't existed?

    Quote Originally posted by Guizmeaux

    On that basis, I disagree with Tamerlane that Alexander "certainly" influenced Julius Ceaser.
    Caesar served in 63 BC as a quaestor in Spain, where in Cadiz he is said to have broken down and wept in front of a statue of Alexander the Great, realizing that where Alexander had conquered most of the known world at thirty, Caesar at that age was merely seen as a dandy who had squandered his wife's fortunes as well as his own.

    Not saying that Alexander necessarily had any more sway on Caesar's eventual actions than he had on the eventual rise of Rome. But just about every great ( western ) general since Alexander has idolized Alexander. At the very least he became, perhaps rivaled later only by Genghis Khan, the universal exemplar of the world conqueror.

  6. #6
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Buckinghamshire, UK
    Posts
    488

    Default Re: How would the world have been different if Alexander the Great hadn't existed?

    Apologies for leaving room to be misread, Tamerlane.

    The quotes around "certainly" meant that any contemporary witness' report should be considered unreliable, given the motivations and interpretations of people who documented it between then and now.

    On the other hand, I maintain that if Alexander hadn't existed as he did, someone else would have filled the role. And since the world had moved into a space where someone like Alexander was possible, it probably wouldn't have taken long...

    None of which answers the original question though. Were there any other really likely contemporary candidates? Or is it fair to say that we can never know because the rulers of the time would have blocked/killed them?

    ETA: "Apologies for leaving room to be misread" sounds really arrogant. I meant that I feel I expressed myself badly in the original, not that you have interpreted my post badly.
    Anything is possible if you use enough lubricant.

  7. #7
    Member
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    63

    Default Re: How would the world have been different if Alexander the Great hadn't existed?

    Quote Originally posted by Guizmeaux

    The quotes around "certainly" meant that any contemporary witness' report should be considered unreliable, given the motivations and interpretations of people who documented it between then and now.
    Oh, no argument. I halfway considered mentioning the above quote was possibly apocryphal, though the fact it would have even been invented points to Alexander's hold on the popular imagination.

    On the other hand, I maintain that if Alexander hadn't existed as he did, someone else would have filled the role. And since the world had moved into a space where someone like Alexander was possible, it probably wouldn't have taken long...

    None of which answers the original question though. Were there any other really likely contemporary candidates? Or is it fair to say that we can never know because the rulers of the time would have blocked/killed them?
    Well, I tend to favor the "great individuals" school of historiography, though certainly not slavishly. IMHO there is nothing that made an Alexander or a Genghis Khan inevitable - I truly think they were extraordinary and "unique." Probaby also to some extent uniquely lucky in either circumstance or event, as one can certainly point to failed would-be Alexanders ( like Pyrrhus of Epirus ) or Genghis Khans ( like Abu'l-Khair ). But no, I don't really think anyone else would have necessarily repeated their performances. It's a complete pulled-from-the-ass hypothesis, but for example I doubt Philip of Macedon, brilliant as he was, would have duplicated his son's success - I don't think he was as reckless or as megalomaniacal to really go for it.

    Which isn't to say that you're wrong when you argue that other conquerors would have continued to try to conquer without an Alexander to inspire them. Sargon of Akkad pre-dated Alexander by a good 2000 years and Cyrus the Great was certainly no slouch either ( poor Cyrus never really seems to get all the credit he's due as an imperialist warmonger ). I think that occasional pathology to dominate is innate to the human critter as a territorial, tribal animal and at base really doesn't require an inspiration - pure human imagination can probably supply that sui generis.

    It's not that I'm arguing that Alexander was somehow vital to the development of that mindset. It's that whatever else you can say about him, his one undeniable influence is that he is forever linked with it. Alexander's direct historical impact, if any, is hard to tease out, except for the very myth ( broad sense ) of the man himself.

    ETA: "Apologies for leaving room to be misread" sounds really arrogant. I meant that I feel I expressed myself badly in the original, not that you have interpreted my post badly.
    No, no - I got ya .

  8. #8
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Buckinghamshire, UK
    Posts
    488

    Default Re: How would the world have been different if Alexander the Great hadn't existed?

    If there was a way here to do all that +1 stuff, you'd be seeing it. Nice post indeed.

    The story of Caesar (let's spell it right for once, Giz) and the statue is actually very interesting whether true or not. If true, it supports your original assertion, which I would have no problem with on the same level as the quote about Alexander himself weeping over the lack of lands to conquer.

    But as with that quote it is my belief that it's apophrycal, as you allude to. And if it is, it certainly does say something about their public perception. (As a side note, it says nothing about where that perception came from. In fact, one might say that it reinforces the essential truth that the victors are the ones who record history).

    Back to the topic, I guess that my real problem with the "great individuals" theorem is that those great individuals are no different from Mt. Everest. Sure it's tall, but it rises from very steep foothills indeed and distinguishes itself only by that marginally additional height it has reached by chance. It's not really that impressive in context but we all know it's name before we remember that of Lhotse. Great (but not necessarily good) men and women occasionally rise to a peak and we remember them too.

    It occurs to me that we're not actually arguing opposite sides here so I'll leave it alone now - neither of us are really managing to answer the original question and I don't really believe that anyone really could except as interpretive alt. fiction. As interesting as that would be, I get the impression you'd be better qualified to write it than me.
    Anything is possible if you use enough lubricant.

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts