Pumba G was Alexander III of Greece??? Or Alexander the Greek king???? Or was he Alexander III of Macedon??? Macedonian king????? Well Macedonia was its own kingdom, who were called barbarians because they were not Greek. Macedonia has been a separate nation to the Greeks for over 2000 years like it shows in historical accounts, all maps of every European empire and in the bible.
Pumba G heres what REAL historians think of the Macedonians and what they wrote in their history books; Borza concludes that Alexander declared himself as “Greek” simply to integrate himself in the Greek world after the Greeks would win over Persia. He says that the stories of his Greek declaration should be completely ignored because they represented a view of his propaganda and his final goal which was of course, to keep the freedom of his country. The famous American historian Peter Green also shares the opinion about Herodotus’s story. Green writes that Alexander was acknowledged as a “Greek”, but it was strongly opposed by the Greeks who were organizing the Olympic Games (SOURCE: Peter Green, “Classical Bearings” p. 157). The historian Ernst Badian gives a similar interpretation about Herodotus’s history for the alleged “Greek” origin of Argaedes. He writes that the influential Greeks made a hard decision admitting Alexander as “Greek”, which caused harsh protests among the other competitors who rejected Alexander’s participation in the Olympics, calling him a “barbarian”. (SOURCE: Ernst Badian: “Studies in the History of Art Vol. 10: Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical Early Hellenistic Times“). He concludes that the decision for Alexander’s participation in the Olympics was purely political and not factual, meaning Alexander only presented himself as a “Greek” to gain political points. He was forced to “prove” his Greek origin, so he would be recognized as Greek by the authorities. But the contestants still protested against his participation, calling him a “barbarian”. The German historian Ulrich Wilcken writes a similar story. He states that Alexander I felt sympathy towards the Greeks and wanted to participate in the Olympics, but was rejected as a “barbarian” because the games were Greek-only. That is why he had to prove his origins, and was later accepted as a competitor. Since then, Macedonian kings were treated as Helens, but same as before, their people were treated as barbarians. (SOURCE: Ulrich Wilcken: „Alexander of Macedon“,1931
Pumba G how can it be a Greek empire, when the Greeks joined the Persians and later the Romans to fight against the Macedonians and the empire??? Book II - Battle of Issus, in Arrian's "The Campaigns of Alexander" "Darius' Greeks fought to thrust the Macedonians back into the water and save the day for their left wing, already in retreat, while the Macedonians, in their turn, with Alexander's triumph plain before their eyes, were determined to equal his success and not forfeit the proud title of invincible, hitherto universally bestowed upon them. The fight was further embittered by the old racial rivalry of Greek and Macedonian." [p.119] Green, Badian, Borza). The fact that 50,000 Greeks were fighting Alexander’s Macedonians shows clearly that their loyalty and their numerical superiority lies with Darius and his Persians, not with Alexander and his Macedonians. As Peter Green puts it: “if this was a Greek conquest where were the Greek troops?” Alexander’s conquest can not therefore be at all a Greek conquest, but simply a Macedonian conquest. Later with the Romans; Titus Quintius Flamininus; a roman commander; Later, when Philip V of Macedon was professing a desire for peace, Titus made a tender to him of peace and friendship, upon the condition that the Greeks be left to their own laws, and that he should withdraw his garrisons, which he refused to comply with, now after these proposals, the universal belief even of the favorers and partisans of Philip, was, that the Romans came not to fight against the Greeks, but for the Greeks, against the Macedonians. What did others say about Macedonians? Here there is a relative abundance of information”, writes Borza, “from Arrian, Plutarch (Alexander, Eumenes), Diodorus 17-20, Justin, Curtius Rufus, and Nepos (Eumenes), based upon Greek and Greek-derived Latin sources. It is clear that over a five-century span of writing in two languages representing a variety of historiographical and philosophical positions the ancient writers regarded the Greeks and the Macedonians as two separate and distinct peoples whose relationship was marked by considerable antipathy, if not outright hostility.” Eugine Borza.
no way on the later part...Alexander was already planning to go for Carthage. Rome would have been strangled in it's crib. Stubbornness would have gotten them completely exterminated. A colossal Macedonia empire would NEVER have let Rome take over Hellenic Italy.
At the time of Alexander's death, Chandragupta Maurya (founder of the Maurya Empire, one of the largest empire in history, which size rivaling that of Alexander's) was about to start his conquest. Historically, within few years of Alexander's death, all of Alexander's territories in India and Afghanistan was fallen to Maurya's conquest. Seleucus Nicator, Alexander's successor in the region, was defeated in Seleucid-Mauryan war. So, if Alexander was still alive in 320 BC, he would most likely continue to wage war in India against the rising power of Mauryan Empire. In the west, by 310 BC Rome have consolidated their power in Latium (thus granting the Romans a large manpower) and within few decades would start annexing Hellenic Italy. So it wouldn't be walking in the park even for the "colossal" Macedonian Empire to continue their expansion.
Immanuel Herman you forget that the successors of Alexander weren't half generals that he was and they didn't have the resources of the whole empire Alexander would definitely destroy the Indians Alexander wouldn't be able to conquer all of India he would stop Indian expansion after that Rome would probably lose the war against the Greeks the only reason romans won against the Greek city states was because how many men they could throw into the meat grinder the Greek city states won every battle until they lost so many men that they couldn't resist anymore and Carthage used manly mercenaries so even if Rome stopped the Greeks from conquering all of Italy I hold high doubts that Carthage would put up that much of a fight
@Comfortably Numb Football At that time, logistics were still primitive. Raising a new army from Egypt or Greece and march them to India will take perhaps 6 months or more, so Alexander will have the same constraint that Seleucus have. He would only able to utilize resources in Persia and Mesopotamia. Alexander, ofc, was among the greatest military leader in history, but if you read Maurya's biography, you'll find that he was no slouch either. He led series of brilliant military campaigns that turn him from a mere adventurer/vagabond into the emperor of one of the largest empire in history (which sounds very much like Alexander's own story). So, I think the struggle between those two great military leader would be long and hard. Carthage was a rich and powerful state, they have strong navy and able leaders. There's no way Alexander can stretch his empire's resources to fight the Indian, Carthaginians, and Roman at the same time. Thus, since the Indian war was almost a certainty, I think the Roman and the Carthaginian would be able to grow just like in our timeline. By the end of Indian war, Rome would be in control of Italy, and Carthage in control of western Mediterranean. Alexander, by this time in his mid 40s, will find the situation similar to that that king Pyrrhus found. Perhaps Alexander will prevail where Pyrrhus did not. Either way, I think his empire will still broken apart after his death. He already over-stretched his empire to its breaking point. He was the only thing that keep it together.
+Immanuel Herman Conquering India was probably unfeasible, I could see Alexander winning a string of battle victories, but that's about it, it's just too massive a country to conquer. However Carthage and Italy would definitely fall to Alexander.
I'm not sure this "disk" model of the world was really espoused by Alexander. He was a student of Aristotle, who would certainly have taught him that the earth was spherical.
I doubt he even knew of Rome. I have a feeling the Macedonian Phalanxes would have been defeated by the more mobile Legions, just as they were 120 years later at Pydna.
Zoroastrianism wasn't anti christian. They distrusted them because Constantine declared himself 'Defender of all Christians' and the Persians were concerned about the fate of Christian loyalty. I wouldn't think Islam would have been able to conquer the empire though.
@@suleymanertugrul8147 I think by "the empire" He means the Macedonians Thats assuming Islam would even exist if Christianity didn't make it far outside Israel-Palestine
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...
You have to remember his men just had a gruelling battle with a small Indian kingdom and now they are facing the largest empire in India with rallied support from every other country, so you could see why they didn't engage.
Apparently Alexander had plans to conquer rome in its infancy, also the carthaginians. He also wanted to explore the northern forests aka Gaul and germania. If he lived long enough, i honestly believe he could have taken all the territories the the roman rmpire would eventually control. Difference being that his empire might have been less oppressive and more inclusive perhaps, but thats up for debate.
It's true that Indians never wanted to go past India. They thought their land had everything they needed and only focused on local warfare which allowed for a certain caste to function as the only manpower. They only had to worry about Chinese and Persians but they traded with both and China and India had the highest GDP in the world since 1 AD - 1820 (India's even higher than China's during the time of the Mughal empire). Ancient Indian armies were only defeated by foreigners through Afghanistan, this gives the name to the mountain regions nearby as Hindu Kush. After the Muslim conquest of India the empire was not prepared for British forces to arrive by sea as it hadn't seen this kind of warfare ever before.
A piece of advice: Don't EVER assume a specific person would even be born in the first place if your alternate history diverges hundreds of years, or even a few years, before their birth. If Alexanders' Empire never fell, it's best to assume that at most, an equivalent to Jesus' role could be born at some point. There wouldn't be the exact same jesus, and DEFINITELY no Napoleon or Hitler.
Yeah but it's for the sake of simplicity, if you made a video talking about every detail that would change, things would get to deep and complicated for a single video or it would become literally impossible to predict anything. Now on the matter of Jesus, it depends, if you're a christian then Jesus would definitely be the same, since he's the son of god, he would develop the same personality, he would do the same things, etc. Now, if you're not a christian, things can surely go anywhere, you can't possibly predict everything that would happen next and the video would be much shorter and boring.
Lmao Jesus Christ was a VERY SPECIFIC SITUATION, completely tied with centuries of roman influence that only came with the fall of the Macedonean The political crisis that fomented revolutionary and modern ideals, the roman rule over Israel, and the fact that Jesus Christ DIED IN A ROMAN CROSS were only there because Rome replaced the Macedonean Empire as the rulling power of the region Even if Jesus had lived, i doubt he would had died the extraordinary way he did, or without the political and religious conflict with romans i doubt he would had made so many followers and became a martyr and eventually a head of an entire new religion AND IF HE DID BY SOME CRAZY WAY, without the unity of rome over europe, without roads and same language and government from sicily to the brittish isles, christianity would had never spread away from the middle east and mediterrean
GrieferDenisStudios There was no west by then , Greece was part of Middle lands . The west is a Modern European and American invention to claim Greece and make themselves somehow related to it but in reality ancient Greeks were never interested in western peoples and never saw themselves as part of them . Babylon or Mesopotamia was already the center of the West if we consider China as the center of the east , and here i am talking about real “West” not the imaginary one .
@@hassanbassim4007 Based on the maps of the era, I think you are correct, Hassan. Greeks saw themselves on "center" or sligthly to the west and considered Babylon to be capital of the world. "Westerners" were considered barbarians (except for greek colonists). It wouldnt be until punic wars, that Greeks started to see Romans as civilized.
Paul wanted to go to Rome to be tried by Caesar, not to just go to the center of the empire. He was a Roman citizen and so appealed to Caesar for the trial.
the Mongols and the Chinese found common ground for hundreds of years. the mughals in India. if Alexander lived another 20 years have his generals and politicians depend on the unity it couldve worked
possible, but probably existed but not quite grow into what it became since mohammed did for about 12 years try to convert spiritually but then turned to deception adjusting to first juediasm and some Christianity to trick people before attacking and starting the kaliphate or Islamic empire for military conquest. He probably would have dealt with other religions instead doing the same thing but again that is uncertain of course
i highly much doubt it, Mohammad learnt a lot from Khadijas Uncle who was a Christian. The holy scripture is based off of the Old and New Testament. It wouldn't have caught on without the "continuation" label the religion has given itself
HQ If Judaism didn't exist Christianity wouldn't exist or be very different. The old testament is part of Christianity and Judaism. All Religions are inspired by the other religion that are existing in the area of origin. They can't be completelly different That is because all religions are human constructs, the result of a creative process, which means to create new ideas from references. The prophet observed that Christianity came out of Judaism so he made Islam appear as the successor to Christianity and Judaism. Naturally getting influences from Arabian Paganism.
@@HQA0 no he didn't learn a lot from his Uncle. He frequently gets things wrong like the virgin Mary being a part of the trinity or that Jews believe Ezra is the son of God. Most Islamic rituals are just arabian pagan practices like stone worship. The Kaaba was a Pagan place of prayer that Mo said was built by Abraham,which doesn't make any sense because the Kaaba is located nowhere near where Abraham travelled. Hell most of the Qur'an isn't even stories like the Bible or Torah, its a bunch of rules and odd things related directly to Muhammad like how he's uncomfortable telling people to get out of his house. I think you'll find that it caught on more because he murdered everyone who opposed him and repressed other religions that he disliked.
At the time of his death, Alexander was on his way west with an eye to subduing Carthage. Had he not died, he may have turned over the administration of his empire to the genius of his teacher Aristotle, who likely would have initiated an efficient bureaucracy similar that of Rome's two centuries later. However it is unlikely that Alexander would have turned into an Augustus or Hadrian and consolidated his holdings as opposed to further adding to them, so it's very likely his empire would have collapsed regardless due to over-expansion. One hundred and thirty years after his death, the Macedonian Phalanxes, Alexander's principal weapon, were cut to pieces by the more mobile Roman Legions at Pydna. There's no reason to doubt Alexander wouldn't have met a similar fate at their hand -- he wouldn't have understood how they fought. The Roman Republic in many ways resembled Sparta: every able bodied man was a trained soldier. Recall that the Romans were invited into Greece by the other city states to help rid them of their Macedonian overlords, who they continued to view as barbarians. This probably would have happened had Alexander lived. Greek culture made a deep impact on Indian culture. Hindu Hellenism is one of its most brilliant times.
Only 2 critiques here. While you are right in that the manipular system the Romans adopted is a huge reason why they won against the Macedonians saying that it would have been the same result 136 years earlier is not accurate. The reason for this is because 136 years prior Macedonia was still very strong and Rome though strong was still developing and would definitely not have had the power and resources to fight a war with Macedon. You also have to look at the structure of the Macedonian army between those 136 years. In the time of Alexander no other army had the experience and leadership and tactics the Macedonians had. The Romans would surely have been a worthy opponent but it would not have been a landslide victory for Rome due to the technology, tactics, and leadership the Macedonians had. My second critique is that I wouldn't compare Rome to Sparta simply because the Spartan army was very small and had a very small amount of men to draw from. Only Spartan citizens were able to join the army. It was this and their stubbornness to incorporate other Greeks into their citizen population that they fell. That and of course their over reliance on slaves for their economy.
Phyrrus of Epirus alone was able to crush the Romans in several battles even though he suffered heavy losses. Epirus was a shit tiny kingdom off the west coast of Greece and you’re seriously telling me that Alexander with even half of the combined might of his empire plus his Greek allies in Italy plus whatever forces he gathered when he eventually conquered Carthage wouldn’t be able to take out Rome? That’s atleast 3x the troops in the hands of the greatest general in history who even Hannibal admitted was the best. Rome would fall that day and what would result would be an inevitable genocide against the Latin peoples who were notoriously resilient and hard to rule. What would ensue would be a bunch Greek kingdoms that would eventually split off from Macedonia after the death of Alexander who would eventually be conquered by the Gauls. That is the fate of Rome had Alexander decided to go west.
Alexander wasn't wrong when he believed that an ocean surrounded all that land, because Eurasia is surrounded by the Atlantic, Indian, Pacific, and Arctic Oceans.
wouldnt the greeks have invaded (or at least tried) nubia? i heard alexander had plans of conquering nubia and possibly going to Abbysinia to own the red sea completley
conquering nubia you realize that nubia is in the desert right? Distance between Khartoum and Aswan is 950 kilometers (590 miles) I don't think the logistics make it possible,, you can't cross desert.
Spanish Central Nation Nubian society was Nile based like Egypt. The ancient cities of Sudan like meroe were built by the Nile and nubia and Egypt were similar geographically although much of kush was greener then (not as it is now due to desertification)
i dont get why people are saying alex wasnt greek but he was a slav? slavs didnt even dominate the balkans until way after alex's death. he was a greek like the spartans and athenians, unless im wrong in which id like someone to explain why
You should give the book " The Golden Vine" by Jai Sen it's a graphic novel that tells the story of Alexander the Great's united empire that did not fall.
10:46 Constantine didn t make Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire, he just allowed it to be practiced. Theodosius I made Christianity the state religion
you should read more history before making these videos. several mistakes about your facts and assumptions. For example you say that he would not have went west when Arrian his personal historian states that Alexander was planning on a western expedition after returning home.
This would likely not have happened. It would've taken incredibly long to conquer Asia, his primary goal. By the time he did and went to Europe, he would've been too busy.
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.
I agree with most of what you said except for Alexander needing to build an administrative system. The system was already in place. After Alexander conquered the Persian empire, he usually just replaced the Persian governor with a Greek one. So by the end of his conquests, the structure of the Achamaenid Empire was still there, it was just Greek instead of Persian. So if Alexander died a decade or two later, it likely would’ve resulted in the prolonging of the Macedonian Empire instead of its immediate collapse like in our timeline. However, given the empire’s extreme diversity and the difficulty of holding systems of governance together during the age of antiquity, I would still bet on the Empire’s collapse shortly after his death.
Hellenistic rulers always gave their throne to the son, even if he is incompetent....maybe if they had succession on merit like Rome had, they would've lasted a bit longer.
I don’t think he could have taken India. He most likely fought to a stalemate in India because the jungle would make conquest difficult. He would probably stabilize his empire but it would probably collapse from factional infighting a couple generations after his reign.
You say that, but the army that won at Granicus River was a VERY different army to the one that fought in Afghanistan. As they went, they recruited locals, learned from them, and used their knowledge to beat new armies. Alexander’s army’s adaptability is what made it great and consistently victorious.
Actually The Chola empire of southern India had colonised modern day Cambodia, Laos, Malayasia, Singapore, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Maldives. Therefore saying India did not have an effective army or did not colonise is a very big understatement.
@@Koke-f1g According to you that lots of coutnire in the world use $ means that they are aprt of USA? That simply shos that Maurya was of course the strongest economy so their currency was the most common intheir neighbour.
Alexander had no interest in conquering India. When he died he was planning a campaign against Arabia, building up his fleet. This was to be followed up by an advance across North Africa, towards Carthage.
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.
@@harshguler I dont see anything it has to do with one king not helping another king because said king ran off with his daughter,or a sudden horde of horse archers having anything to do with caste for the matter.Caste wasn't as much of a primary factor in politics as religion was in this era,especially in the relations between Indic and non-Indic states
I love history. I can’t understand why it took so long to run into this channel . Yesterday I put in search word civil war I’ve been watching since probably 5 videos very well done !
1:40 Correction: He force marched his men through the Gedrosian Desert to prove he was better than Cyrus the Great, who had unsuccessfully done it before a few centuries earlier, not as a punishment.
There's a could chance that the butterfly effect from not controlling the Eastern provinces and instead having a rival power in their place would prevent the Crisis of the Third Century, or cause it to erupt later. Especially if Rome was reborn out of a revolt against the Macedonians. Having a hated rival this close to the capital might have discouraged infighting, though it likely would have accelerated the trend of recruiting barbarians to the legions.
If a peace could be maintained between the Macedonians and the romans, I actually think that the Roman Empire probably could have been more stable than it was in our time.
We dont know how good he was at governing, because he didnt get a chance to start at it, friend. What we do know is that he abolished taxation in Macedonia just before heading east, that he pardoned all debts of his soldiers and that he executed all of officers/satraps, who were corrupt while returning to Babylon. He also made some overt gestures toward Persians by marrying the daughter of their last king and forming his new household bodyguards out of persian men.
but a post axial religion Zoroastrianism was disloged by another post axial religion Islam in Persia. I think the assumption that the Greeks would have accepted Zoroastrianism as there religion is far fetched. The Greeks hated the Persians and would not have taken up Zoroastrianism just because Alexander said so. After all the Greeks where independent minded and did not conform to the Asiatic compliance psyche of the state/kingdom ahead of the individual. I think the jewish monotheistic religion would still have emerged as the main religion in this post alexander the great empire. Not did it happen once in our universe Christianity but it happened again 600 years later Islam.
Stan Theman Because Islam draws upon Christianity for many of it's scriptures, and a Macedonian Empire- not a Roman Empire, in control of the Judean territories would no doubt have changed the charactr of the Christian religion, it is possible that Islam might never have existed, or have turned out to be a belief-system unrecognizable compared to what it is in our timeline.
the religious conversion yes a little stupid I agree. it was already difficult having so many different peoples that the dominat power like Macedonia wouldn't have thought to do that
"a post axial religion Zoroastrianism was disloged by another post axial religion Islam in Persia.": Two problems in this line: 1. Sassanid Persia lost that war because its military was so exhausted after repeated wars with Roman empire. If those wars did not occur (as the result of union), then Sassanian would not have fell. 2. I do not agree that Zoroastrianism is dislodged in Iran. Sufism is the intellectual continuation of Zoroastrianism.
@@SC-zq6cu except Zoroastrianism was taken down by Islam. with Persia converting into a muslim (mostly shiite) majority. Only pockets of Zoroastrian adherents remain and again Zoroastrians dont even allow conversion don't they?
Achaemenids remain a force in the east. Macedonia still controls Greece however. Rome would still form its dominion and beat carthage. They would also probably still take Greece and defeat Macedonians at Pidna. And then? And then they would maybe clash with the Achaemenids, but it can't predict how what would go
I think even the Macedonians would have still arranged for Christ's crucifixion, though- or similar exile or execution. As it says in the Subgenius Scriptures of Revelation X: "Even is Jesus DID return, no sane world government would allow something talking, walking, and with rumored powers the likes of Jesus, to walk around free for very long!"
Truth be told, Alexander was just as tired as his troops, he was smart, schooled by some of the best minds of the era, after years of eastern conquest with no sign of the edge of the world he was half relieved when his troops decided they were fed up. Alexander was also planning for invasions of Rome and Carthage, as well as Arabia, so we would probably see the romans being Greek subjects and Carthage may be able to hold their ground due to their sheer distance, although the Greek army is now well seasoned in long desert campaigns, so I wouldn’t put any bets on Carthage’s survival, the borders of the Macedonian empire at its peak would probably reach from Morocco to Persian and from the alps and southern France to Arabia/horn of Africa. With Alexander leaving a legacy of exploration through conquest instead of the Roman idea of conquest and glory, it is likely that the Macedonians would be very open to exploration via trade and would likely get heavily involved in Indian Ocean/East Asian trade, they would also come in contact with the celts in Britain and would probably venture down the African west coast, I don’t want to be unreasonable and say they would’ve made it to the new world, but with an oceangoing navy instead of the Roman calm water navy it is definitely possible, there is pretty good evidence that the Polynesians conducted fairly normal trade in South America before the rise of Rome, so it wouldn’t be far fetched to say that some Macedonian leader seeking to continue Alexander’s goal of finding the edge of the world would send ships off into the Atlantic, only to find resource rich land ripe for conquest.
Interesting. I think there would have been more of a fusion between Greek and Indian culture in this timeline. There was in our timeline’s Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek Kingdoms which actually lasted longer than the rest of the Hellenistic successor states. They created Greek style Buddha statues. The Indo-Greeks spread further into India after Alexander’s death. Alexander would have attacked and conquered Rome and Carthage. The incentive was there due to the numerous Greek colonies in the region. There would have been no Roman Empire. The historic of Northern Europe is hard to predict. The Celts may have survived in Gaul, Britannia and parts of Iberia although there would have been many waves of migrations that are hard to predict. Hellenistic civilization would have spread from Spain to the Bay of Bengal. The long term effects of this are hard to predict but there may have been many modern nations speaking languages derived from Greek. Persia and north India probably would have survived in some form with Hellenistic elements and possibly re-emerged as independent empires at some point. It’s hard to predict if Christianity and Islam would even exist in this timeline. Maybe Greek paganism would survive in some form. Maybe the Hellenistic works would convert to an Iranian or Indian religion.
2:32 without the mauryan empire ,let's just say that the modern states of india,pakistan,bangladesh,nepal,bhutan,srilanka and afghanistan wouls take a huge leap into the other side of history .The entire concept of south asia and the ethnic groups itself would turn on it's head ..
Macedonian Empire would turn to zoroastrism. Funniest thing I have ever heard. The point of conquering all this territory was to hellenise it, not the opposite
If you think all those people in delhi sultanate was from outside then you are wrong.also small indian kingdoms were able to repell the islamic caliphates out of india. @@RPM1776
@@RPM1776 delhi sultanate ya i know but delhi sultanate have 80% rajput soldiers And alluding Khilji defeated in mewar 2 times but 1303 Khilji won And Gujarat kings defeated Khilji 5 times but 1305 Khilji attack big army with rajput soldiers and they won In Mongol invasion Khilji use rajput soldiers and generals
I know I am late but would Odoacer still exist? If I remember correctly he became king of Italy in the mid to late 400's after dethroning the West Roman Emperor. Would his reign still happen or would another similar event happen.
I think you are making HUGE presumption about success of arabian invasion. Huge part in its success was the previous total war between Sassanid Iran and Byzantines. War, that laster 19 years while Sassanids were pestered by White Huns and Greeks by Bulgars. This total war would not exist in your new timeline as both Greeks and Persians would cooperate.
Who says not? Roman empire too lived wars between the east and west, an too civil wars. Probably this timeline would have too its own set of civil wars in the time. In fact I see unlikely this big alexadnrian empire lasting a thousand years. It would have probably already fallen be4.
I feel like there is a book that explores this concept i.e. a world where alexander's empire never fell. In that book a ww1/ww2 era general accidentally makes a portal to a parallel world where alexander's empire never fell and as a consequent europe never left the middle ages and americas were uncolonized. I am forgetting the name of this book.
You forgett that if the Romans did not expand eastwards, they would not have overextended, and would probably have survived their crisis, if not avoided it in the first place.
I still kind of doubt that islam would still rise if Christianity or another religion already held Arabia. The reason is, well, Arabia would already be a stronghold for said religion. I think that would butterfly away Islam. That is, if Mohammed himself isn't butterflied away out of existence from Alexander's Empire still existing on it's own.
true and most of the powers at that time were weak too but Alexander's life time of continuos conquest would have kept them strong and pretty much swept away islam becoming much of anything since in our timeline it really started at the right time and place to force itself into something after some failed preachings at its beginning
I like your reasoning here in this video, but I don't think most of the historical figures you name would exist after the point of divergence. Too much would have changed. I did really enjoy the video though.
1:58 But it won't be the Nanda Empire he would be facing but the Mauryan Empire and under one of its most Capable leaders ever. So no, if he had to regrets first, he ain't conquering the Mauryan Empire. Maybe if his troops doesn't stop and he just kept moving forward, as the Nanda Empire was weak but even then higher chances for him to die to disease as India is wetter than all his other conquests.
The Nanda empire collapse a few years after Alexander's death. Chandragupta would have just started his campaign around 321 BC, two years after Alexander died in 323 BC, so if he returned to India soon after, he would have been in the perfect position to take over. I actually see Chandragupta allying with Alexander, becoming a vassal king under him like Porus did.
Skanda Gupta won against Huns, the huns ruined Romans. Please don't forget, before commenting blindly against Indian warfare. This land taught the world about elephant warfare. Over here, Elephant was not ram only, but act as cavalry unit, Unlike Roma or carthage. Rajendra Chola, Vijaya Sinha they all won battle in foreign soils. I hope u never heard of Khoman, the Rana of chittor, who defeated Arabs 17 times. Please....
I find your point about any religious influence irrelevant as the late monotheistic (Abrahamic) religions would have inevitably been “butterflied away” by the Macedonian conquests.
7 лет назад+19
If Alexander hadn't died he'd of ran smack into a medium to powerful Carthage since he planned on invading Africa after the Indian campaigns. So we might see a Punic war but with Macedon instead of Rome
Byzantine Warrior almost any bigger country would crush charthage their population was small they are a trading colony so all of their men were mercenaries
Byzantine Warrior Since this is really old op has changed his name, and I thought you were starting your comment by calling him retardation incarnate haha
I really enjoyed your video overall. However, I disagree with you completely about Christianity not becoming the dominant religion of the Empire. It thrives in underground house churches in Iran right now. This is why Iran arrests and executes all pastors that they find, especially those from the West. Christian faith would have spread like wildfire among the Jews and the Greeks in that timeline and then slowly among the subjugated Persians. Please keep the outstanding videos coming and God bless you, my friend!
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.
I dont get why you think Arab invasions would still occur in this timeline. Main reason for both Arab political unification, and their military victories were single persons, not general events. Very important mens like Mohammed, Khalid Bin Velid, and Caliph Umar might simply not exist in this timeline, and Arabian peninsula could stay as it is and have infights for more centuries.
I do find it more likely Alexander´s army would have been depleted. As great of a general as he is his army is not limitless and his battles in India were quite costly. Not to mention in the strange land starvation is likely as well, something similar to what happened to Napoleon who was never defeated by the Russians in battle but just couldn't hold onto the land.
The fact that you think Greece would not expand West is puzzling. Whomever would rule Greece after Alexander would never allow Carthage or Rome to become empires within their reach of the Mediterranean.
i will disagree with your study about india the indian empires where much stronger than any european empires they lost only due to internal conficts for your information mauryan empire was there from 322 to 185 bc so even if alexander didnt died he had to defeat muryan empire which was pratically impossible since even sasanid emperor gave his daughter for maariage to the mauryan after its defeat
difficult to conquer in it lands yes, its a nightmare fighting in those ancient tactics and weapons but if an empire or lands have really bad internal conflicts then its not truly strong. Rome removed its internal issues and lasted for a long time but unti lthose internal issues combined with external came in and much easier to fight in those lands than in india like how most nations avoided invading Switzerland due to its mountains so indian was definitely tough yes but not strong like these empires cause the Indians never really pushed out a major power wanting to conquer them. Alexander's army was pushed to the limit, it had one successful defense then most didn't move in and Indians fought themselves until europeans came in and took over hell the dutch gained control through economy not war so not that strong
What the fuck are you talking about When Alexander defeated porus,in 326 BC India was still ruled by Nandas. And the Chandragupta Maurya only established his empire by destroying Nandas in about 320 BC. Since the Nanda got defeated by an Upstart the empire was probably in decline. So Alexander would have arrived i a sweet spot between the decline of one great empire and the rise of another
In the end it doesnt really matter if alexander was not greek. He loved greece and wants to be greek. The greeks also likes him. So it doesnt matter really. If he was alive today he would be sad in the state of greece of course but he would also indeed say 'I am not serbian I am greek'. So it does not matter in the end. He chose to fight for the greeks and so he shall. If he loved the northern parts he would have fought for them and called them his people which he never did. Also whyd he spread hellenic culture then if he isnt greek? So wtf is alexander supposed not 'greek' spreading GREEK culture to others? Seems pretty stupid ain't it?
With the expectation of Islam since Christianity was not that popular .. I LOVE THE IDEA BEING PRESENTED HERE. IT FEELS LIKE I AM LEARNED AN ALTERNATE HISTORY FORM A ALIEN'S PERSPECTIVE RATHER THAN "WHAT IF" PERSPECTIVE. YOU SHOULD MAKE PART 2. EVEN IF THE FUTURE OF THIS ALTERNATE IS VASTLY DIFFERENT FROM OUR TIMELINE! THIS VIDEO GAVE ME IDEA FOR A NEW MAPPING SERIES ONCE I FINISH MY AFOW SERIES. I LOVE HOW THIS TIMELINE IS VASTLY DIFFERENT FROM AND THIS VIDEO IS THE BEST ALTERNATE EVENT (IN TERM OF IDEAS AND UNCERTAINTIES) THAT I EVER SEEN. (I am really not being sarcastic honestly. It really is the best alternate video I have seen EVER in RUclips)
Even if Alexander lived longer, the big empire would be delicate for attacks of the Parthians and Sassanids. During the war, India would break of, so I am sure, there would be a Sassanid Empire as well. The Arabian Empire would likely still rise, as the Sassanids had a chaotic system of religious policy. But from then, it gets problematic.
Wait a second ........................................The Nanda Empire was one of Ancient India’s strong empires . Defeating an empire whose infantry was 5 times his own would have been a nigh impossible task even for Alexander . Porus , the Paurava king who put up so stiff resistance, that impressed Alexander was a nonentity when compared to the Nanda Empire . The Nanda Empire would have crushed Alexander with certainty . Dhana Nanda’s army consisted of 200,000 infantry, 20,000 cavalry, 2,000 war chariots and 3,000 war elephants. Imagine , 220,000 soldiers clad in well built Iron Armour , having Sharpened Swords , Lances and Spears along with very vibrant shields , walking and riding in perfect formation . The earth shaking due to stomping of the huge numbers of soldiers, the trumpets of 3000 war elephants trained to kill. All would be more than enough to strike fear in Alexander’s measly army of 40,000 infantry and 7000 cavalry .
Some of the analysis for Romes fate is pretty weak. First of all, Constantine being a good emperor is something that isnt even remotely agreed upon in the historic community. He was praised by Christians over the centuries, but a critical look at him reveals a very different story. There are historians that argue his policies ultimately were the catalyst for Romes downfall. Second, the Roman empire was hit by many plagues that massively weakened it. Those Plagues all came from military expansions in the east. Without these plagues, Rome would have had a much larger population than it did in our time.
Yeah it was an invasion more from the Afghanistain region but that's about it they never went beyond after that nor did well against significant powers wanting to come in.
@Archana Kulkarni Naw probably just not taught about it. Indian history for whatever reason isn't well which is a shame. As the little I've read seems pretty righteous.
When you're such a good general that your army gets tired of winning
Marc Alcatraz XD
Marc Alcatraz if Alexanders Macedonian Empire never collapsed, Greeks wouldn’t dare make any fake history to claim the Macedonians as Greeks!!!!
Pumba G was Alexander III of Greece??? Or Alexander the Greek king????
Or was he Alexander III of Macedon??? Macedonian king?????
Well Macedonia was its own kingdom, who were called barbarians because they were not Greek. Macedonia has been a separate nation to the Greeks for over 2000 years like it shows in historical accounts, all maps of every European empire and in the bible.
Pumba G heres what REAL historians think of the Macedonians and what they wrote in their history books;
Borza concludes that Alexander declared himself as “Greek” simply to integrate himself in the Greek world after the Greeks would win over Persia. He says that the stories of his Greek declaration should be completely ignored because they represented a view of his propaganda and his final goal which was of course, to keep the freedom of his country.
The famous American historian Peter Green also shares the opinion about Herodotus’s story. Green writes that Alexander was acknowledged as a “Greek”, but it was strongly opposed by the Greeks who were organizing the Olympic Games (SOURCE: Peter Green, “Classical Bearings” p. 157).
The historian Ernst Badian gives a similar interpretation about Herodotus’s history for the alleged “Greek” origin of Argaedes. He writes that the influential Greeks made a hard decision admitting Alexander as “Greek”, which caused harsh protests among the other competitors who rejected Alexander’s participation in the Olympics, calling him a “barbarian”. (SOURCE: Ernst Badian: “Studies in the History of Art Vol. 10: Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical Early Hellenistic Times“).
He concludes that the decision for Alexander’s participation in the Olympics was purely political and not factual, meaning Alexander only presented himself as a “Greek” to gain political points. He was forced to “prove” his Greek origin, so he would be recognized as Greek by the authorities. But the contestants still protested against his participation, calling him a “barbarian”. The German historian Ulrich Wilcken writes a similar story. He states that Alexander I felt sympathy towards the Greeks and wanted to participate in the Olympics, but was rejected as a “barbarian” because the games were Greek-only. That is why he had to prove his origins, and was later accepted as a competitor. Since then, Macedonian kings were treated as Helens, but same as before, their people were treated as barbarians. (SOURCE: Ulrich Wilcken: „Alexander of Macedon“,1931
Pumba G how can it be a Greek empire, when the Greeks joined the Persians and later the Romans to fight against the Macedonians and the empire???
Book II - Battle of Issus, in Arrian's "The Campaigns of Alexander"
"Darius' Greeks fought to thrust the Macedonians back into the water
and save the day for their left wing, already in retreat, while the
Macedonians, in their turn, with Alexander's triumph plain before their eyes, were determined to equal his success and not forfeit the proud title of invincible, hitherto universally bestowed upon them. The fight was further embittered by the old racial rivalry of Greek and
Macedonian." [p.119]
Green, Badian, Borza). The fact that 50,000 Greeks were fighting Alexander’s Macedonians shows clearly that their loyalty and their numerical superiority lies with Darius and his Persians, not with Alexander and his Macedonians. As Peter Green puts it: “if this was a Greek conquest where were the Greek troops?” Alexander’s conquest can not therefore be at all a Greek conquest, but simply a Macedonian conquest.
Later with the Romans;
Titus Quintius Flamininus; a roman commander;
Later, when Philip V of Macedon was professing a desire for peace, Titus made a tender to him of peace and friendship, upon the condition that the Greeks be left to their own laws, and that he should withdraw his garrisons, which he refused to comply with, now after these proposals, the universal belief even of the favorers and partisans of Philip, was, that the Romans came not to fight against the Greeks, but for the Greeks, against the Macedonians.
What did others say about Macedonians? Here there is a relative abundance of information”, writes Borza, “from Arrian, Plutarch (Alexander, Eumenes), Diodorus 17-20, Justin, Curtius Rufus, and Nepos (Eumenes), based upon Greek and Greek-derived Latin sources. It is clear that over a five-century span of writing in two languages representing a variety of historiographical and philosophical positions the ancient writers regarded the Greeks and the Macedonians as two separate and distinct peoples whose relationship was marked by considerable antipathy, if not outright hostility.” Eugine Borza.
no way on the later part...Alexander was already planning to go for Carthage. Rome would have been strangled in it's crib. Stubbornness would have gotten them completely exterminated. A colossal Macedonia empire would NEVER have let Rome take over Hellenic Italy.
At the time of Alexander's death, Chandragupta Maurya (founder of the Maurya Empire, one of the largest empire in history, which size rivaling that of Alexander's) was about to start his conquest.
Historically, within few years of Alexander's death, all of Alexander's territories in India and Afghanistan was fallen to Maurya's conquest. Seleucus Nicator, Alexander's successor in the region, was defeated in Seleucid-Mauryan war.
So, if Alexander was still alive in 320 BC, he would most likely continue to wage war in India against the rising power of Mauryan Empire.
In the west, by 310 BC Rome have consolidated their power in Latium (thus granting the Romans a large manpower) and within few decades would start annexing Hellenic Italy.
So it wouldn't be walking in the park even for the "colossal" Macedonian Empire to continue their expansion.
Immanuel Herman you forget that the successors of Alexander weren't half generals that he was and they didn't have the resources of the whole empire Alexander would definitely destroy the Indians Alexander wouldn't be able to conquer all of India he would stop Indian expansion after that Rome would probably lose the war against the Greeks the only reason romans won against the Greek city states was because how many men they could throw into the meat grinder the Greek city states won every battle until they lost so many men that they couldn't resist anymore and Carthage used manly mercenaries so even if Rome stopped the Greeks from conquering all of Italy I hold high doubts that Carthage would put up that much of a fight
@Comfortably Numb Football At that time, logistics were still primitive. Raising a new army from Egypt or Greece and march them to India will take perhaps 6 months or more, so Alexander will have the same constraint that Seleucus have. He would only able to utilize resources in Persia and Mesopotamia.
Alexander, ofc, was among the greatest military leader in history, but if you read Maurya's biography, you'll find that he was no slouch either. He led series of brilliant military campaigns that turn him from a mere adventurer/vagabond into the emperor of one of the largest empire in history (which sounds very much like Alexander's own story).
So, I think the struggle between those two great military leader would be long and hard.
Carthage was a rich and powerful state, they have strong navy and able leaders. There's no way Alexander can stretch his empire's resources to fight the Indian, Carthaginians, and Roman at the same time.
Thus, since the Indian war was almost a certainty, I think the Roman and the Carthaginian would be able to grow just like in our timeline.
By the end of Indian war, Rome would be in control of Italy, and Carthage in control of western Mediterranean. Alexander, by this time in his mid 40s, will find the situation similar to that that king Pyrrhus found.
Perhaps Alexander will prevail where Pyrrhus did not.
Either way, I think his empire will still broken apart after his death. He already over-stretched his empire to its breaking point. He was the only thing that keep it together.
+Immanuel Herman Conquering India was probably unfeasible, I could see Alexander winning a string of battle victories, but that's about it, it's just too massive a country to conquer. However Carthage and Italy would definitely fall to Alexander.
Genghis Don ....Even if the Repuboic is lead by a brilliant practical military strategist the likes of Julius Caesar?
This would be in Greek
Ben Quinney Macedonia
@@Laughwithmelol still dont know ur country is fake ?
@@Laughwithmelol then stfu kid
A dangerous comedian my friend you are going to upset many Greeks with that.
@@OLYMPIANgreek i can see who is a kid here
I'm not sure this "disk" model of the world was really espoused by Alexander. He was a student of Aristotle, who would certainly have taught him that the earth was spherical.
probro9898 but his armies weren’t. He could better communicate his desires by what they thought of the world.
The "disk" model assumed that the rest of the world was water, so it wasn't depicted
Buddhist art is strongly influenced by Greek sculpture, and Afghanistan has many cultural oddities inherited from Greece. eg dancing boys.
greco-indian kingdom do be kinda epic
“Dancing boys”
Is that what we’re calling it now?
"dancing boys" sounds like an ancient greek thing.
When Alexander died, he was planning an invasion of both Rome and Carthage.
He was planning an invasion of carthage, but probably would have taken Rome just because he's close
I doubt he even knew of Rome. I have a feeling the Macedonian Phalanxes would have been defeated by the more mobile Legions, just as they were 120 years later at Pydna.
Legion system wouldn't have been developed by then.
AnOriginal Name yeah rome would either ally with Alexander or be defeated and sacked
AnOriginal Name that guy with a bunch of elephants was Hannibal, one of the greatest strategist in history.
He was planning on conquering Carthage and would have most likely incorporated Italy's Greek colonies into his empire.
Person: Alexander,who will be your successor?
Alexander: THE STRONGEST! "Dies"
Everyone: Guess I'm the strongest
Zoroastrianism wasn't anti christian. They distrusted them because Constantine declared himself 'Defender of all Christians' and the Persians were concerned about the fate of Christian loyalty.
I wouldn't think Islam would have been able to conquer the empire though.
The Crusader Historian which empire
@@suleymanertugrul8147 I think by "the empire" He means the Macedonians
Thats assuming Islam would even exist if Christianity didn't make it far outside Israel-Palestine
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...
You have to remember his men just had a gruelling battle with a small Indian kingdom and now they are facing the largest empire in India with rallied support from every other country, so you could see why they didn't engage.
Ask the British how they held India with so so few brits
Apparently Alexander had plans to conquer rome in its infancy, also the carthaginians. He also wanted to explore the northern forests aka Gaul and germania. If he lived long enough, i honestly believe he could have taken all the territories the the roman rmpire would eventually control. Difference being that his empire might have been less oppressive and more inclusive perhaps, but thats up for debate.
It's true that Indians never wanted to go past India. They thought their land had everything they needed and only focused on local warfare which allowed for a certain caste to function as the only manpower. They only had to worry about Chinese and Persians but they traded with both and China and India had the highest GDP in the world since 1 AD - 1820 (India's even higher than China's during the time of the Mughal empire). Ancient Indian armies were only defeated by foreigners through Afghanistan, this gives the name to the mountain regions nearby as Hindu Kush. After the Muslim conquest of India the empire was not prepared for British forces to arrive by sea as it hadn't seen this kind of warfare ever before.
@N Gaming No ur wrong
@N Gaming why tf would anyone in india invade desert Afghanistan and less fertile Persia , it's utter foolishness
@N Gaming kushans were not Indians
@N Gaming well they did not invade afgansistan from india , they did it before invading india , they came from central Asia or something
@N Gaming there's a dude called epimethius or something on yt he puts these history videos , i suggest you to watch one on kushans it's very good
WHAT IF CYRUS THE GREAT'S EMPIRE NEVER FELL!
(im the only dude who wants this believe it.)
Emperor Of Wall I would prefer , what if Nebuchadnezzar II Babylonian Empire never fell ?
What if the Serengeti Empire of Lucy the Fossil had conquered the world?
Miley Cyrus?
it didn’t fall until Alexander the Great so basically what your saying is “what if Alexander the Great never existed”
What sif oaq
A piece of advice: Don't EVER assume a specific person would even be born in the first place if your alternate history diverges hundreds of years, or even a few years, before their birth. If Alexanders' Empire never fell, it's best to assume that at most, an equivalent to Jesus' role could be born at some point. There wouldn't be the exact same jesus, and DEFINITELY no Napoleon or Hitler.
Yannick Luecker it’s an ALTERNATE history so theoretically people can be born before or after they were in real life.
Yeah but it's for the sake of simplicity, if you made a video talking about every detail that would change, things would get to deep and complicated for a single video or it would become literally impossible to predict anything.
Now on the matter of Jesus, it depends, if you're a christian then Jesus would definitely be the same, since he's the son of god, he would develop the same personality, he would do the same things, etc.
Now, if you're not a christian, things can surely go anywhere, you can't possibly predict everything that would happen next and the video would be much shorter and boring.
if youre christian
no Jesus is Jesus his methodology different but his divine nature the same
Exactly what I was thinking but better
Lmao Jesus Christ was a VERY SPECIFIC SITUATION, completely tied with centuries of roman influence that only came with the fall of the Macedonean
The political crisis that fomented revolutionary and modern ideals, the roman rule over Israel, and the fact that Jesus Christ DIED IN A ROMAN CROSS were only there because Rome replaced the Macedonean Empire as the rulling power of the region
Even if Jesus had lived, i doubt he would had died the extraordinary way he did, or without the political and religious conflict with romans i doubt he would had made so many followers and became a martyr and eventually a head of an entire new religion
AND IF HE DID BY SOME CRAZY WAY, without the unity of rome over europe, without roads and same language and government from sicily to the brittish isles, christianity would had never spread away from the middle east and mediterrean
Alexander was a fair man. RIP,even though you've been dead for 2,343 years.
lol
Never too late to grieve for the loss of Alexander the Great.
@@ETB3341 I wouldn't mind living in a world where we worship the ancient memory of the Macedonian Demigod Emperor of Mankind.
Alexander wanted to make Babylon his capital and graecified it greatly. So Mesopotamia would be part of the western empire.
GrieferDenisStudios There was no west by then , Greece was part of Middle lands . The west is a Modern European and American invention to claim Greece and make themselves somehow related to it but in reality ancient Greeks were never interested in western peoples and never saw themselves as part of them .
Babylon or Mesopotamia was already the center of the West if we consider China as the center of the east , and here i am talking about real “West” not the imaginary one .
@@hassanbassim4007 This is correct, the concept of the "West" is very modern and trivial
@@hassanbassim4007 Based on the maps of the era, I think you are correct, Hassan.
Greeks saw themselves on "center" or sligthly to the west and considered Babylon to be capital of the world. "Westerners" were considered barbarians (except for greek colonists). It wouldnt be until punic wars, that Greeks started to see Romans as civilized.
Paul wanted to go to Rome to be tried by Caesar, not to just go to the center of the empire. He was a Roman citizen and so appealed to Caesar for the trial.
the Mongols and the Chinese found common ground for hundreds of years. the mughals in India. if Alexander lived another 20 years have his generals and politicians depend on the unity it couldve worked
15:16 if Christianity never caught on then Islam wouldn't have existed as a religion
possible, but probably existed but not quite grow into what it became since mohammed did for about 12 years try to convert spiritually but then turned to deception adjusting to first juediasm and some Christianity to trick people before attacking and starting the kaliphate or Islamic empire for military conquest. He probably would have dealt with other religions instead doing the same thing but again that is uncertain of course
i highly much doubt it, Mohammad learnt a lot from Khadijas Uncle who was a Christian. The holy scripture is based off of the Old and New Testament. It wouldn't have caught on without the "continuation" label the religion has given itself
HQ
If Judaism didn't exist Christianity wouldn't exist or be very different. The old testament is part of Christianity and Judaism.
All Religions are inspired by the other religion that are existing in the area of origin. They can't be completelly different That is because all religions are human constructs, the result of a creative process, which means to create new ideas from references.
The prophet observed that Christianity came out of Judaism so he made Islam appear as the successor to Christianity and Judaism. Naturally getting influences from Arabian Paganism.
@@HQA0 no he didn't learn a lot from his Uncle.
He frequently gets things wrong like the virgin Mary being a part of the trinity or that Jews believe Ezra is the son of God. Most Islamic rituals are just arabian pagan practices like stone worship. The Kaaba was a Pagan place of prayer that Mo said was built by Abraham,which doesn't make any sense because the Kaaba is located nowhere near where Abraham travelled.
Hell most of the Qur'an isn't even stories like the Bible or Torah, its a bunch of rules and odd things related directly to Muhammad like how he's uncomfortable telling people to get out of his house.
I think you'll find that it caught on more because he murdered everyone who opposed him and repressed other religions that he disliked.
the arabs would still launch their invasions without islam
At the time of his death, Alexander was on his way west with an eye to subduing Carthage. Had he not died, he may have turned over the administration of his empire to the genius of his teacher Aristotle, who likely would have initiated an efficient bureaucracy similar that of Rome's two centuries later.
However it is unlikely that Alexander would have turned into an Augustus or Hadrian and consolidated his holdings as opposed to further adding to them, so it's very likely his empire would have collapsed regardless due to over-expansion.
One hundred and thirty years after his death, the Macedonian Phalanxes, Alexander's principal weapon, were cut to pieces by the more mobile Roman Legions at Pydna. There's no reason to doubt Alexander wouldn't have met a similar fate at their hand -- he wouldn't have understood how they fought. The Roman Republic in many ways resembled Sparta: every able bodied man was a trained soldier. Recall that the Romans were invited into Greece by the other city states to help rid them of their Macedonian overlords, who they continued to view as barbarians. This probably would have happened had Alexander lived.
Greek culture made a deep impact on Indian culture. Hindu Hellenism is one of its most brilliant times.
Paul Quinn
Only 2 critiques here. While you are right in that the manipular system the Romans adopted is a huge reason why they won against the Macedonians saying that it would have been the same result 136 years earlier is not accurate. The reason for this is because 136 years prior Macedonia was still very strong and Rome though strong was still developing and would definitely not have had the power and resources to fight a war with Macedon. You also have to look at the structure of the Macedonian army between those 136 years. In the time of Alexander no other army had the experience and leadership and tactics the Macedonians had. The Romans would surely have been a worthy opponent but it would not have been a landslide victory for Rome due to the technology, tactics, and leadership the Macedonians had. My second critique is that I wouldn't compare Rome to Sparta simply because the Spartan army was very small and had a very small amount of men to draw from. Only Spartan citizens were able to join the army. It was this and their stubbornness to incorporate other Greeks into their citizen population that they fell. That and of course their over reliance on slaves for their economy.
Phyrrus of Epirus alone was able to crush the Romans in several battles even though he suffered heavy losses. Epirus was a shit tiny kingdom off the west coast of Greece and you’re seriously telling me that Alexander with even half of the combined might of his empire plus his Greek allies in Italy plus whatever forces he gathered when he eventually conquered Carthage wouldn’t be able to take out Rome? That’s atleast 3x the troops in the hands of the greatest general in history who even Hannibal admitted was the best. Rome would fall that day and what would result would be an inevitable genocide against the Latin peoples who were notoriously resilient and hard to rule. What would ensue would be a bunch Greek kingdoms that would eventually split off from Macedonia after the death of Alexander who would eventually be conquered by the Gauls. That is the fate of Rome had Alexander decided to go west.
Alexander wasn't wrong when he believed that an ocean surrounded all that land, because Eurasia is surrounded by the Atlantic, Indian, Pacific, and Arctic Oceans.
America and Australia crying in the corner cuz they'll never be discovered.
@@lohengramm7798 Horsetribeland and Aboriginaland.
wouldnt the greeks have invaded (or at least tried) nubia? i heard alexander had plans of conquering nubia and possibly going to Abbysinia to own the red sea completley
conquering nubia
you realize that nubia is in the desert right?
Distance between Khartoum and Aswan is 950 kilometers (590 miles)
I don't think the logistics make it possible,, you can't cross desert.
Macedonian not Greek 😤
Spanish Central Nation Nubian society was Nile based like Egypt. The ancient cities of Sudan like meroe were built by the Nile and nubia and Egypt were similar geographically although much of kush was greener then (not as it is now due to desertification)
mingoduck Macedonians was Greeks by Doric tribe... not Slav
i dont get why people are saying alex wasnt greek but he was a slav? slavs didnt even dominate the balkans until way after alex's death. he was a greek like the spartans and athenians, unless im wrong in which id like someone to explain why
You should give the book " The Golden Vine" by Jai Sen it's a graphic novel that tells the story of Alexander the Great's united empire that did not fall.
yeah but starting price on Amazon is over 50quid!!
5:04 that poor cow
It there mother
A lot of these points are very poorly thought out
Your point is very poorly argued out
Most alt histories are
10:46 Constantine didn t make Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire, he just allowed it to be practiced. Theodosius I made Christianity the state religion
you should read more history before making these videos. several mistakes about your facts and assumptions. For example you say that he would not have went west when Arrian his personal historian states that Alexander was planning on a western expedition after returning home.
He said he wouldn't do it because he was to busy managing the empire. Not that he never thought of conquering rome...
He would have done it tho
We'll never know, cuz he died before he could do anything
would have, he was not interested in running shit he lived for battle
This would likely not have happened. It would've taken incredibly long to conquer Asia, his primary goal. By the time he did and went to Europe, he would've been too busy.
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.
I agree with most of what you said except for Alexander needing to build an administrative system. The system was already in place. After Alexander conquered the Persian empire, he usually just replaced the Persian governor with a Greek one. So by the end of his conquests, the structure of the Achamaenid Empire was still there, it was just Greek instead of Persian. So if Alexander died a decade or two later, it likely would’ve resulted in the prolonging of the Macedonian Empire instead of its immediate collapse like in our timeline.
However, given the empire’s extreme diversity and the difficulty of holding systems of governance together during the age of antiquity, I would still bet on the Empire’s collapse shortly after his death.
Hellenistic rulers always gave their throne to the son, even if he is incompetent....maybe if they had succession on merit like Rome had, they would've lasted a bit longer.
I don’t think he could have taken India. He most likely fought to a stalemate in India because the jungle would make conquest difficult. He would probably stabilize his empire but it would probably collapse from factional infighting a couple generations after his reign.
You say that, but the army that won at Granicus River was a VERY different army to the one that fought in Afghanistan. As they went, they recruited locals, learned from them, and used their knowledge to beat new armies. Alexander’s army’s adaptability is what made it great and consistently victorious.
Actually The Chola empire of southern India had colonised modern day Cambodia, Laos, Malayasia, Singapore, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Maldives. Therefore saying India did not have an effective army or did not colonise is a very big understatement.
He was talking about northern India and they were trading posts not colonies
Mauryan empire expanded till irani Baluchistan and central asia
@@Koke-f1g Meh, that was a theoretical frontier accorded with Seleucus. I doubt MAuryas would care to control lands beyond Hindu Kush.
@@adamnesico central asian greek states used Indian currency at that time... which shows mauryan influence
@@Koke-f1g According to you that lots of coutnire in the world use $ means that they are aprt of USA?
That simply shos that Maurya was of course the strongest economy so their currency was the most common intheir neighbour.
ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΣ Ο ΜΕΓΑΣ ! The greatest Greek !
*Macedonian, he was never Greek.
Dac DT using the same logic Spartans and Athenians weren't greeks either
Νικηφορος Κοτσυφακης they can not understand because they teach lies in propagandistic schools ...
Seriously how was he greek he was as much as greek as byzanthine was greek if they respect your culture doesnt mean they were greek.
Alexander wasnt greek he was hellenic να τα λες σωστά
Alexander had no interest in conquering India. When he died he was planning a campaign against Arabia, building up his fleet. This was to be followed up by an advance across North Africa, towards Carthage.
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.
@@harshguler I dont see anything it has to do with one king not helping another king because said king ran off with his daughter,or a sudden horde of horse archers having anything to do with caste for the matter.Caste wasn't as much of a primary factor in politics as religion was in this era,especially in the relations between Indic and non-Indic states
I love history. I can’t understand why it took so long to run into this channel . Yesterday I put in search word civil war I’ve been watching since probably 5 videos very well done !
I think you make best alt history.
I miss the time when this channel used to be about history and not politics.
Glad to hear a mention of the Axial age.
1:40 Correction:
He force marched his men through the Gedrosian Desert to prove he was better than Cyrus the Great, who had unsuccessfully done it before a few centuries earlier, not as a punishment.
There's a could chance that the butterfly effect from not controlling the Eastern provinces and instead having a rival power in their place would prevent the Crisis of the Third Century, or cause it to erupt later. Especially if Rome was reborn out of a revolt against the Macedonians. Having a hated rival this close to the capital might have discouraged infighting, though it likely would have accelerated the trend of recruiting barbarians to the legions.
O ma GOD , I waited for this
If a peace could be maintained between the Macedonians and the romans, I actually think that the Roman Empire probably could have been more stable than it was in our time.
Unstable superpower taken over by Alexander, who was good at conquest but less good at governing, his empire fractured into manageable subunits
We dont know how good he was at governing, because he didnt get a chance to start at it, friend. What we do know is that he abolished taxation in Macedonia just before heading east, that he pardoned all debts of his soldiers and that he executed all of officers/satraps, who were corrupt while returning to Babylon.
He also made some overt gestures toward Persians by marrying the daughter of their last king and forming his new household bodyguards out of persian men.
but a post axial religion Zoroastrianism was disloged by another post axial religion Islam in Persia. I think the assumption that the Greeks would have accepted Zoroastrianism as there religion is far fetched. The Greeks hated the Persians and would not have taken up Zoroastrianism just because Alexander said so. After all the Greeks where independent minded and did not conform to the Asiatic compliance psyche of the state/kingdom ahead of the individual. I think the jewish monotheistic religion would still have emerged as the main religion in this post alexander the great empire. Not did it happen once in our universe Christianity but it happened again 600 years later Islam.
Stan Theman Because Islam draws upon Christianity for many of it's scriptures, and a Macedonian Empire- not a Roman Empire, in control of the Judean territories would no doubt have changed the charactr of the Christian religion, it is possible that Islam might never have existed, or have turned out to be a belief-system unrecognizable compared to what it is in our timeline.
the religious conversion yes a little stupid I agree. it was already difficult having so many different peoples that the dominat power like Macedonia wouldn't have thought to do that
"a post axial religion Zoroastrianism was disloged by another post axial religion Islam in Persia.": Two problems in this line:
1. Sassanid Persia lost that war because its military was so exhausted after repeated wars with Roman empire. If those wars did not occur (as the result of union), then Sassanian would not have fell.
2. I do not agree that Zoroastrianism is dislodged in Iran. Sufism is the intellectual continuation of Zoroastrianism.
Zoroastrianism wasn't dislodged. Its adherents were simply militarily exhausted and conquered. It wasn't a religious takeover but a military takeover.
@@SC-zq6cu except Zoroastrianism was taken down by Islam. with Persia converting into a muslim (mostly shiite) majority. Only pockets of Zoroastrian adherents remain and again Zoroastrians dont even allow conversion don't they?
What if Alexander the Great never existed? Basically the opposite of this video.
Achaemenids remain a force in the east. Macedonia still controls Greece however. Rome would still form its dominion and beat carthage. They would also probably still take Greece and defeat Macedonians at Pidna. And then? And then they would maybe clash with the Achaemenids, but it can't predict how what would go
I think even the Macedonians would have still arranged for Christ's crucifixion, though- or similar exile or execution.
As it says in the Subgenius Scriptures of Revelation X:
"Even is Jesus DID return, no sane world government would allow something talking, walking, and with rumored powers the likes of Jesus, to walk around free for very long!"
Truth be told, Alexander was just as tired as his troops, he was smart, schooled by some of the best minds of the era, after years of eastern conquest with no sign of the edge of the world he was half relieved when his troops decided they were fed up. Alexander was also planning for invasions of Rome and Carthage, as well as Arabia, so we would probably see the romans being Greek subjects and Carthage may be able to hold their ground due to their sheer distance, although the Greek army is now well seasoned in long desert campaigns, so I wouldn’t put any bets on Carthage’s survival, the borders of the Macedonian empire at its peak would probably reach from Morocco to Persian and from the alps and southern France to Arabia/horn of Africa. With Alexander leaving a legacy of exploration through conquest instead of the Roman idea of conquest and glory, it is likely that the Macedonians would be very open to exploration via trade and would likely get heavily involved in Indian Ocean/East Asian trade, they would also come in contact with the celts in Britain and would probably venture down the African west coast, I don’t want to be unreasonable and say they would’ve made it to the new world, but with an oceangoing navy instead of the Roman calm water navy it is definitely possible, there is pretty good evidence that the Polynesians conducted fairly normal trade in South America before the rise of Rome, so it wouldn’t be far fetched to say that some Macedonian leader seeking to continue Alexander’s goal of finding the edge of the world would send ships off into the Atlantic, only to find resource rich land ripe for conquest.
Interesting.
I think there would have been more of a fusion between Greek and Indian culture in this timeline. There was in our timeline’s Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek Kingdoms which actually lasted longer than the rest of the Hellenistic successor states. They created Greek style Buddha statues. The Indo-Greeks spread further into India after Alexander’s death.
Alexander would have attacked and conquered Rome and Carthage. The incentive was there due to the numerous Greek colonies in the region. There would have been no Roman Empire.
The historic of Northern Europe is hard to predict. The Celts may have survived in Gaul, Britannia and parts of Iberia although there would have been many waves of migrations that are hard to predict.
Hellenistic civilization would have spread from Spain to the Bay of Bengal. The long term effects of this are hard to predict but there may have been many modern nations speaking languages derived from Greek.
Persia and north India probably would have survived in some form with Hellenistic elements and possibly re-emerged as independent empires at some point.
It’s hard to predict if Christianity and Islam would even exist in this timeline. Maybe Greek paganism would survive in some form. Maybe the Hellenistic works would convert to an Iranian or Indian religion.
2:32 without the mauryan empire ,let's just say that the modern states of india,pakistan,bangladesh,nepal,bhutan,srilanka and afghanistan wouls take a huge leap into the other side of history .The entire concept of south asia and the ethnic groups itself would turn on it's head ..
Macedonian Empire would turn to zoroastrism. Funniest thing I have ever heard.
The point of conquering all this territory was to hellenise it, not the opposite
The majority of the population would be Persian
Then we would comment in Greek right now..
The Indians managed to repel 2 or 3 mongol invasions
That was the muslim delhi sultanate
If you think all those people in delhi sultanate was from outside then you are wrong.also small indian kingdoms were able to repell the islamic caliphates out of india. @@RPM1776
@@RPM1776 delhi sultanate ya i know but delhi sultanate have 80% rajput soldiers
And alluding Khilji defeated in mewar 2 times but 1303 Khilji won
And Gujarat kings defeated Khilji 5 times but 1305 Khilji attack big army with rajput soldiers and they won
In Mongol invasion Khilji use rajput soldiers and generals
@@hnsingh6888 oh
Alexander wanted to conquer all of North Africa, Italy and Western Europe also, things would have been much different if he did
I know I am late but would Odoacer still exist? If I remember correctly he became king of Italy in the mid to late 400's after dethroning the West Roman Emperor. Would his reign still happen or would another similar event happen.
I think you are making HUGE presumption about success of arabian invasion.
Huge part in its success was the previous total war between Sassanid Iran and Byzantines. War, that laster 19 years while Sassanids were pestered by White Huns and Greeks by Bulgars. This total war would not exist in your new timeline as both Greeks and Persians would cooperate.
Who says not? Roman empire too lived wars between the east and west, an too civil wars.
Probably this timeline would have too its own set of civil wars in the time. In fact I see unlikely this big alexadnrian empire lasting a thousand years. It would have probably already fallen be4.
India is massively underestimated. I very much doubt that Alexander would have been able to conquer as far as Bengal.
Harrison Shone nop indians just like he said always has small armies because only 1 of casts could become warriors
@@nikolavideomaker dude Nanda army was 10x more than Alexander's
What if Alexander despised alcohol and anyone who abused it?
I feel like there is a book that explores this concept i.e. a world where alexander's empire never fell. In that book a ww1/ww2 era general accidentally makes a portal to a parallel world where alexander's empire never fell and as a consequent europe never left the middle ages and americas were uncolonized. I am forgetting the name of this book.
Now that was fun!
Theres not a lot of times I see titles like these and actually say *”Man what if”*
You forgett that if the Romans did not expand eastwards, they would not have overextended, and would probably have survived their crisis, if not avoided it in the first place.
I still kind of doubt that islam would still rise if Christianity or another religion already held Arabia. The reason is, well, Arabia would already be a stronghold for said religion. I think that would butterfly away Islam. That is, if Mohammed himself isn't butterflied away out of existence from Alexander's Empire still existing on it's own.
true and most of the powers at that time were weak too but Alexander's life time of continuos conquest would have kept them strong and pretty much swept away islam becoming much of anything since in our timeline it really started at the right time and place to force itself into something after some failed preachings at its beginning
what a dream
I like your reasoning here in this video, but I don't think most of the historical figures you name would exist after the point of divergence. Too much would have changed. I did really enjoy the video though.
1:58 But it won't be the Nanda Empire he would be facing but the Mauryan Empire and under one of its most Capable leaders ever.
So no, if he had to regrets first, he ain't conquering the Mauryan Empire. Maybe if his troops doesn't stop and he just kept moving forward, as the Nanda Empire was weak but even then higher chances for him to die to disease as India is wetter than all his other conquests.
Bruh when Alex was alive there was no maurya empire
The Nanda empire collapse a few years after Alexander's death. Chandragupta would have just started his campaign around 321 BC, two years after Alexander died in 323 BC, so if he returned to India soon after, he would have been in the perfect position to take over. I actually see Chandragupta allying with Alexander, becoming a vassal king under him like Porus did.
Skanda Gupta won against Huns, the huns ruined Romans. Please don't forget, before commenting blindly against Indian warfare. This land taught the world about elephant warfare. Over here, Elephant was not ram only, but act as cavalry unit, Unlike Roma or carthage. Rajendra Chola, Vijaya Sinha they all won battle in foreign soils. I hope u never heard of Khoman, the Rana of chittor, who defeated Arabs 17 times. Please....
I find your point about any religious influence irrelevant as the late monotheistic (Abrahamic) religions would have inevitably been “butterflied away” by the Macedonian conquests.
If Alexander hadn't died he'd of ran smack into a medium to powerful Carthage since he planned on invading Africa after the Indian campaigns. So we might see a Punic war but with Macedon instead of Rome
Byzantine Warrior almost any bigger country would crush charthage their population was small they are a trading colony so all of their men were mercenaries
Byzantine Warrior
Since this is really old op has changed his name, and I thought you were starting your comment by calling him retardation incarnate haha
I really enjoyed your video overall. However, I disagree with you completely about Christianity not becoming the dominant religion of the Empire. It thrives in underground house churches in Iran right now. This is why Iran arrests and executes all pastors that they find, especially those from the West. Christian faith would have spread like wildfire among the Jews and the Greeks in that timeline and then slowly among the subjugated Persians. Please keep the outstanding videos coming and God bless you, my friend!
He died because of heavy fever
Alexander wanted to go west.. No way rome could of stopped him at that time(if ever)
All they needed was a bad leader of macedon and a good general
@@gunter6377 at that time rome was a city state/a small republic they wouldnt be able to stop him
The first Anglo Maratha war is a great example of an Indian victory against other nations. The Maratha empire beat the British in this war.
Alexander never created an empier
He conquered
constantine didn't make christianity the state reliogion, it was emperor Theodosius. constantine just converted to it
My name is Alexander the Great and I own the Red Sea
Atilla: invades Alexander's Empire
Alexander: Omae Wa Mou Shindeiru!
Atilla: NANI?
Atilla the Hun? How would that even happen Attila wasn't born yet. Hell he wouldn't he born for centuries after Alexander.
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.
I dont get why you think Arab invasions would still occur in this timeline.
Main reason for both Arab political unification, and their military victories were single persons, not general events.
Very important mens like Mohammed, Khalid Bin Velid, and Caliph Umar might simply not exist in this timeline, and Arabian peninsula could stay as it is and have infights for more centuries.
I do find it more likely Alexander´s army would have been depleted. As great of a general as he is his army is not limitless and his battles in India were quite costly. Not to mention in the strange land starvation is likely as well, something similar to what happened to Napoleon who was never defeated by the Russians in battle but just couldn't hold onto the land.
The fact that you think Greece would not expand West is puzzling. Whomever would rule Greece after Alexander would never allow Carthage or Rome to become empires within their reach of the Mediterranean.
5:20 - 5:26 tf was that breathing?
But India WAS the most advanced country before the British came.
i will disagree with your study about india the indian empires where much stronger than any european empires they lost only due to internal conficts for your information mauryan empire was there from 322 to 185 bc so even if alexander didnt died he had to defeat muryan empire which was pratically impossible since even sasanid emperor gave his daughter for maariage to the mauryan after its defeat
Well said. I just about to write similar comment when I read yours.
The Persians got whooped by Alexander. He'd whoop the Mauryans too
difficult to conquer in it lands yes, its a nightmare fighting in those ancient tactics and weapons but if an empire or lands have really bad internal conflicts then its not truly strong. Rome removed its internal issues and lasted for a long time but unti lthose internal issues combined with external came in and much easier to fight in those lands than in india like how most nations avoided invading Switzerland due to its mountains so indian was definitely tough yes but not strong like these empires cause the Indians never really pushed out a major power wanting to conquer them. Alexander's army was pushed to the limit, it had one successful defense then most didn't move in and Indians fought themselves until europeans came in and took over hell the dutch gained control through economy not war so not that strong
Actually the Mauryans defeated pretty handedly the Seleucids who were Alexander's successors in Persia.
What the fuck are you talking about
When Alexander defeated porus,in 326 BC India was still ruled by Nandas.
And the Chandragupta Maurya only established his empire by destroying Nandas in about 320 BC.
Since the Nanda got defeated by an Upstart the empire was probably in decline.
So Alexander would have arrived i a sweet spot between the decline of one great empire and the rise of another
saudi arabia would have been conquered. Right before his death, his plan was to go southward into Arabia and would have helinized the region
5:18 Not true, The Cholas conquered a lot of territory outside of the subcontinent.
Are you sure that is conquer, or local chieftains adopting the culture and religion of the Cholas?
@@khaccanhle1930it was conquest the cholas wiped out srivijaya empire in southeast asia
I find it hard to believe he could conquer the entire nanda empire
What if the Sassanides won the battle of Ninive?
or what if Sassanids and Byzantines allied against the Arabs
@@blitzkrieg2928 they did
@@CataciousAmogusevicthey didn’t. It’s islamic propaganda
In the end it doesnt really matter if alexander was not greek. He loved greece and wants to be greek. The greeks also likes him. So it doesnt matter really. If he was alive today he would be sad in the state of greece of course but he would also indeed say 'I am not serbian I am greek'. So it does not matter in the end. He chose to fight for the greeks and so he shall. If he loved the northern parts he would have fought for them and called them his people which he never did. Also whyd he spread hellenic culture then if he isnt greek? So wtf is alexander supposed not 'greek' spreading GREEK culture to others? Seems pretty stupid ain't it?
I believe Rome would have survived since the main reason it failed was its sheer size and if it was half that size they could have survived easier.
Ben Reilman Nice theory!
With the expectation of Islam since Christianity was not that popular
.. I LOVE THE IDEA BEING PRESENTED HERE. IT FEELS LIKE I AM LEARNED AN ALTERNATE HISTORY FORM A ALIEN'S PERSPECTIVE RATHER THAN "WHAT IF" PERSPECTIVE. YOU SHOULD MAKE PART 2. EVEN IF THE FUTURE OF THIS ALTERNATE IS VASTLY DIFFERENT FROM OUR TIMELINE! THIS VIDEO GAVE ME IDEA FOR A NEW MAPPING SERIES ONCE I FINISH MY AFOW SERIES.
I LOVE HOW THIS TIMELINE IS VASTLY DIFFERENT FROM AND THIS VIDEO IS THE BEST ALTERNATE EVENT (IN TERM OF IDEAS AND UNCERTAINTIES) THAT I EVER SEEN.
(I am really not being sarcastic honestly. It really is the best alternate video I have seen EVER in RUclips)
I am confused
Get rid of the map that says Arabian gulf
It's the Persian Gulf.
Daniel Gazman can't we just call it the Mesopotamian gulf
YA ALI!
@@busterbiloxi3833 no
@@beaukennedy4618 yes
@@beaukennedy4618 just call it the middle gulf
Even if Alexander lived longer, the big empire would be delicate for attacks of the Parthians and Sassanids. During the war, India would break of, so I am sure, there would be a Sassanid Empire as well. The Arabian Empire would likely still rise, as the Sassanids had a chaotic system of religious policy. But from then, it gets problematic.
Do your actual research dude
Wait a second ........................................The Nanda Empire was one of Ancient India’s strong empires . Defeating an empire whose infantry was 5 times his own would have been a nigh impossible task even for Alexander .
Porus , the Paurava king who put up so stiff resistance, that impressed Alexander was a nonentity when compared to the Nanda Empire . The Nanda Empire would have crushed Alexander with certainty .
Dhana Nanda’s army consisted of 200,000 infantry, 20,000 cavalry, 2,000 war chariots and 3,000 war elephants. Imagine , 220,000 soldiers clad in well built Iron Armour , having Sharpened Swords , Lances and Spears along with very vibrant shields , walking and riding in perfect formation . The earth shaking due to stomping of the huge numbers of soldiers, the trumpets of 3000 war elephants trained to kill. All would be more than enough to strike fear in Alexander’s measly army of 40,000 infantry and 7000 cavalry .
that would be amazing like to rule from Greece into Bengal where I am originally from
slave mentality
Some of the analysis for Romes fate is pretty weak. First of all, Constantine being a good emperor is something that isnt even remotely agreed upon in the historic community. He was praised by Christians over the centuries, but a critical look at him reveals a very different story. There are historians that argue his policies ultimately were the catalyst for Romes downfall. Second, the Roman empire was hit by many plagues that massively weakened it. Those Plagues all came from military expansions in the east. Without these plagues, Rome would have had a much larger population than it did in our time.
Dude, you know nothing about Indian history
Could you reboot this video?
Idk what a greek kingdom is.... I think that you meant hellenic we dont like calling our ancient kingdoms greek
There is no difference between the two words. It is like German and Deutsch. They are the same.
Here’s a suggestion: turn off anti aliasing. It makes your maps look like trash
India defeated Pakistan, but I think that was it.
Pakistan was considered India until 1947 so I think it dosen't really count as an external enemy
Well there you go lol
Yeah it was an invasion more from the Afghanistain region but that's about it they never went beyond after that nor did well against significant powers wanting to come in.
@Archana Kulkarni Naw probably just not taught about it. Indian history for whatever reason isn't well which is a shame. As the little I've read seems pretty righteous.
What if... all the what ifs happened? Alexander consolidates empire, Ogodei dies later and his Mongols invade Europe, etc.