- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
How would the world be different if Alexander the Great lived another 20-25 years?
Posted on 1/12/26 at 11:43 pm
Posted on 1/12/26 at 11:43 pm
He died very young at 32 years old before he could consolidate his power in his empire and create a stable form of governance. His generals then fought over his territories and carved out smaller kingdoms.
What if he lived another 20 years? Would he have strengthened his empire and allowed it to be able to resist the expansion of Rome several centuries later?
Would Christianity have never spread because the Roman Empire never conquered Judea or the rest of the east?
Would Islam have never spread centuries later because a strong Hellenistic empire was still intact?
It’s very interesting to think about.
What if he lived another 20 years? Would he have strengthened his empire and allowed it to be able to resist the expansion of Rome several centuries later?
Would Christianity have never spread because the Roman Empire never conquered Judea or the rest of the east?
Would Islam have never spread centuries later because a strong Hellenistic empire was still intact?
It’s very interesting to think about.
This post was edited on 1/12/26 at 11:54 pm
19
Posted on 1/13/26 at 12:18 am to cbree88
quote:
Would Christianity have never spread because the Roman Empire never conquered Judea or the rest of the east?
Deus Vult
Posted on 1/13/26 at 2:49 am to cbree88
quote:
What if he lived another 20 years? Would he have strengthened his empire and allowed it to be able to resist the expansion of Rome several centuries later?
He was a great general but that doesn’t mean he would have been great at governing. Empires are really hard to maintain.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 5:55 am to cbree88
I'm more curious on if he'd have given clear instructions on a successor.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 6:14 am to Barbellthor
I think he would have had to shrink his empire in order to govern it.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 6:18 am to cbree88
He’d probably still be banging Angelina.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 6:26 am to cbree88
Interesting question. Compare him to Cyrus the great who lived 30 years and consolidated the Persian empire. It lasted a couple of hundred years. It’s possible. But like people said Conquering with an army built by your father and governing are 2 separate things so most likely he wasn’t as successful as Cyrus. Just playing odds.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 6:38 am to cbree88
it wouldn't
Posted on 1/13/26 at 6:52 am to cbree88
He would’ve definitely taken a serious L at some point
Posted on 1/13/26 at 6:56 am to cbree88
It seems unlikely that he would have ever stopped conquering long enough to do the serious internal governance necessary to consolidate that much territory that long ago.
With an extra 20-25 years, I image the empire roughly doubles in size, leaving remnants of its legacy for the generations after. But not, the world would likely not be materially different outside of the cultural blip it would have delivered a little further beyond its borders
With an extra 20-25 years, I image the empire roughly doubles in size, leaving remnants of its legacy for the generations after. But not, the world would likely not be materially different outside of the cultural blip it would have delivered a little further beyond its borders
Posted on 1/13/26 at 7:07 am to cbree88
quote:
before he could consolidate his power in his empire and create a stable form of governance.
I don't think Alexander was ever going to do this.
He was a general, not an administrator. Some of The Diadochi had skills ad administrators, like Ptolemy.
If Alexander didn't die, he was facing few areas to try to conquer and an army that was done. He'd have to go live somewhere (probably around Babylon) and let his army go home to enjoy the spoils. Then he'd try to raise another army in a few years to go somewhere, possibly trying the Indian subcontinent again.
quote:
Would he have strengthened his empire and allowed it to be able to resist the expansion of Rome several centuries later?
The Hellenistic period following his death had a lot of wars and Greek expansion in Northern Africa, the Fertile Crescent, and the Anatolian/Caucaus regions. They went to war a lot and this kept them sharp and developing. I don't think Alexander ruling the entire empire would have kept it advancing as much.
Rome ultimately conquered the strongest of these areas like Egypt. No reason to think they would have had more trouble if Alexander had been mismanaging the empire.
quote:
Would Christianity have never spread because the Roman Empire never conquered Judea or the rest of the east?
Christianity was a religion crafted by the oppressed with a message for the oppressed. It didn't matter what powerful society was on top of it, be it Roman or Greek or Persian.
quote:
Would Islam have never spread centuries later because a strong Hellenistic empire was still intact?
Those areas still existed and succumbed to the Arab-Islamic conquest. That was a LONG time later, too. Like 1000 years.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 7:36 am to cbree88
I think his conquests ended because his men mutinied. Maybe they were tired of endless war.
If he had lived, I don't think things would have been the same.
If he had lived, I don't think things would have been the same.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 8:05 am to cbree88
Part of the reason Christianity spread initially was Greek influence, not Roman.
Lots of people spoke Greek and had access to a Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint).
Rome persecuted the early church and didn’t help its spread until Constantine converted.
Lots of people spoke Greek and had access to a Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint).
Rome persecuted the early church and didn’t help its spread until Constantine converted.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 8:06 am to cbree88
Just read Ozymandias, by Shelley. This will tell you everything you need to know about the fleeting nature of great empires.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 8:16 am to KiwiHead
quote:
think he would have had to shrink his empire in order to govern it.
Idk. Bigger empires have existed. It's a question of governance, which someone else pointed out. You're probably correct, even if but because the Helennistic states were city states and regions unified at times under a leader like him or for causes like resisting the Persians, more in alliances than a single state.
That is different from the singular empire of Rome, for example, with its senate plus emperor. So yea I'd agree.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 8:59 am to cbree88
At the very least, he'd have produced a heir to continue his empire. The Roman Empire may very well have never existed.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 9:15 am to cbree88
If Alexander lives another 20–25 years, the world isn’t fundamentally different, just less chaotic.
Once Alexander the Great broke Achaemenid power, the Hellenistic trajectory was locked in. Greek language, cities, coinage, and elite culture were going to dominate the eastern Mediterranean and Near East regardless, as it still did during Roman times across the Roman Empire. Greek was the language and culture of the intellectual elites. His early death mainly produced the Successor wars and decades of instability.
Had he lived, that fragmentation is delayed or avoided. Trade networks stabilize sooner, populations aren’t ground down by constant war, and Rome likely rises more slowly, though not prevented.
The main area of real divergence is east of Persia. Longer consolidation in Bactria and the Indus could deepen Greco-Indian interaction, especially with early Mauryan power under Chandragupta Maurya.
Once Alexander the Great broke Achaemenid power, the Hellenistic trajectory was locked in. Greek language, cities, coinage, and elite culture were going to dominate the eastern Mediterranean and Near East regardless, as it still did during Roman times across the Roman Empire. Greek was the language and culture of the intellectual elites. His early death mainly produced the Successor wars and decades of instability.
Had he lived, that fragmentation is delayed or avoided. Trade networks stabilize sooner, populations aren’t ground down by constant war, and Rome likely rises more slowly, though not prevented.
The main area of real divergence is east of Persia. Longer consolidation in Bactria and the Indus could deepen Greco-Indian interaction, especially with early Mauryan power under Chandragupta Maurya.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 9:21 am to cbree88
quote:
How would the world be different if Alexander the Great lived another 20-25 years?
Men would be thinking about the Macedonian Empire a lot.
Men think about the Roman Empire a lot
Posted on 1/13/26 at 10:22 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Those areas still existed and succumbed to the Arab-Islamic conquest. That was a LONG time later, too. Like 1000 years.
The Hellenistic kingdoms were all gone for almost 700 years when Islam was born.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 7:05 pm to cbree88
quote:
The Hellenistic kingdoms were all gone for almost 700 years when Islam was born.
Eastern Roman Empire still spoke Greek when Constantinople was sacked in the 15th century.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News