What if Alexander didn't try to invade India?

[Imperador Pedro III]

After taking the Achemenid Empire away from Darius, Alexander continued his advance to Bactria and then to current day Pakistan, where even while being victorious against King Porus, he was forced to halt his advance and come back, leaving the dream of conquering India behind for the time being due to a munity among his Macedonian soldiers.

But what if Alexander was just a little less glory hungry? What if instead of advancing against Bactria and the Indus River he had stopped after taking Persia? Assuming he does survive, would his Empire be more stable than had he simply reached the Indus river like he did? It looks very sketchy to imagine that an Empire with a centre of gravity in Babylon could efficiently control even the outskirts of India, specially when the real homeland of the Argead Empire was actually Macedon and he had to control everything beyond that with lots of garrisons.

And the more land he took, the more he dispersed the Macedonian and Greek settlers able to colonize and administers conquered territories.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Alexander's unlikely to survive much longer and assuming he does I don't think his empire would succeed him because ultimately there always will be someone to carve it up, it could even be his own sons; the Empire is just too overstretched.

 

[Lalli]

Alexander's unlikely to survive much longer and assuming he does I don't think his empire would succeed him because ultimately there always will be someone to carve it up, it could even be his own sons; the Empire is just too overstretched.

True. Either Alexander's drinking habits kill him or then he is killed on some other military campaign. Or then is just assassinated. He hardly was going to live old age. So depending what exactly nextly happen his empire was already doomed. Size wasn't problem but poor succession system and too rapid expansion were going to make end of his empire unless Alexander manage to live long enough that he can groom his own successor.

 

[AkhenatenOrRamses]

After taking the Achemenid Empire away from Darius, Alexander continued his advance to Bactria and then to current day Pakistan, where even while being victorious against King Porus, he was forced to halt his advance and come back, leaving the dream of conquering India behind for the time being due to a munity among his Macedonian soldiers.

But what if Alexander was just a little less glory hungry? What if instead of advancing against Bactria and the Indus River he had stopped after taking Persia? Assuming he does survive, would his Empire be more stable than had he simply reached the Indus river like he did? It looks very sketchy to imagine that an Empire with a centre of gravity in Babylon could efficiently control even the outskirts of India, specially when the real homeland of the Argead Empire was actually Macedon and he had to control everything beyond that with lots of garrisons.

And the more land he took, the more he dispersed the Macedonian and Greek settlers able to colonize and administers conquered territories.

It depends on how Alexander dies in TTL. Does he die early like in OTL? Then his generals carve up the empire as in OTL, only without any regions of India ruled by Seleucus or various other Macedonian warlords. If he lives longer, then he probably focuses on areas closer to the known Greek world, probably Arabia, west towards Carthage and Rome, or maybe south of Egypt into Nubia.

Regardless of whether parts of India are conquered by Alexander, he's still accomplished his longest lasting accomplishment - ensuring the Greek language and culture will be very present in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East for some time.

 

[Mildtryth]

After taking the Achemenid Empire away from Darius, Alexander continued his advance to Bactria and then to current day Pakistan, where even while being victorious against King Porus, he was forced to halt his advance and come back, leaving the dream of conquering India behind for the time being due to a munity among his Macedonian soldiers.

But what if Alexander was just a little less glory hungry? What if instead of advancing against Bactria and the Indus River he had stopped after taking Persia? Assuming he does survive, would his Empire be more stable than had he simply reached the Indus river like he did? It looks very sketchy to imagine that an Empire with a centre of gravity in Babylon could efficiently control even the outskirts of India, specially when the real homeland of the Argead Empire was actually Macedon and he had to control everything beyond that with lots of garrisons.

And the more land he took, the more he dispersed the Macedonian and Greek settlers able to colonize and administers conquered territories.

Would a less glory hungry Alexander even go that far? he might just end up taking Darius III's offer to split the empire at the Euphrates...

 

[Imperador Pedro III]

Would a less glory hungry Alexander even go that far? he might just end up taking Darius III's offer to split the empire at the Euphrates...

Taking the offer didn't make sense because some Persian ruler would eventually want a rematch.

But there was no good reason to invade the Central Asia and the Indus Valley.

 

[NotAMyth]

It wasn't about being power hungry, just most obvious common sense, atleast if you're going by Herodotus's histories (like Alexander definitely was)

What Alexander saw was the absolute necessity of getting to India, because-

1. The small part that the Achaemenids held probably constituted a large chunk of their tax revenue needed to hold the otherwise sparsely populated east.
2. Riches from further conquests could basically guarantee that he and his empire/dynasty would never suffer from a lack of resources.

 

[ImperialxWarlord]

It probably depends on when he dies and how his succession goes. Does he live five more years? Or 35? Is his succession smooth and unchallenged? Is his heir competent? Does he go on further conquests elsewhere? Does manic energy get directed towards building and establishing his empire?

 

[The_Persian_Cat]

It depends on what he does try to do. If he tries to invade somewhere else, I am sure his empire would fragment in a similar way. However, if he returns to Ecbatana, tries to consolidate rule over his conquests, secure the succession of Alexander IV, and maybe even sire a few more potential heirs, maybe his empire would last a little longer. It's really impossible to say, but I think it's more likely.

 

[Mikestone8]

True. Either Alexander's drinking habits kill him or then he is killed on some other military campaign. Or then is just assassinated. He hardly was going to live old age.

Not necessarily. His father Philip was also a heavy drinker yet lived a lot longer.

Also, various of his generals - Pompey, Seleucus , Antigonus and (iirc) Craterus led equally eventful lives yet survived to their seventies or eighties. So if he avoids that arrow in the lung which he suffered in India, and the ordeal of crossing the Makran desert, then there's no reason why he couldn't have had a normal lifespan..

 

[Mikestone8]

secure the succession of Alexander IV, and maybe even sire a few more potential heirs,

There'd be at least one more. His other wife, Darius' daughter, was pregnant when he died, whereupon Roxana promptly killed her. I think I read somewhere that her foetus was male.

 

[The_Persian_Cat]

There'd be at least one more. His other wife, Darius' daughter, was pregnant when he died, whereupon Roxana promptly killed her. I think I read somewhere that her foetus was male.

Wow, I didn't know that. Fascinating "what if" scenario.

Maybe Alexander's empire could be partitioned not between his generals, but between his sons. If Alexander had multiple heirs, then factions could form around each of them, and maybe they'd fight wars of succession similar to OTL.
However, unlike OTL, it's possible that Alexander's successors wouldn't provincialise. In OTL, all of the Macedonian kingdoms had a Hellenic ruling caste -- but their rulers only claimed to rule their particular kingdom, and adopted some of the conventions of those kingdoms. Like, the Ptolemies were pharaohs of Egypt, and the Seleucids were shahs of Persia, etc. But if the Argead Dynasty persisted, all of its scions would have a claim to Alexander's entire legacy, and would attempt to claim rulership over Egypt, Persia, etc etc. So the culture of rulership would be more Macedonian, and less Egyptian, Persian, or whatever.

...idk if I'm making sense, I'm really tired.

 

[Qastiel]

Wow, I didn't know that. Fascinating "what if" scenario.

Maybe Alexander's empire could be partitioned not between his generals, but between his sons. If Alexander had multiple heirs, then factions could form around each of them, and maybe they'd fight wars of succession similar to OTL.
However, unlike OTL, it's possible that Alexander's successors wouldn't provincialise. In OTL, all of the Macedonian kingdoms had a Hellenic ruling caste -- but their rulers only claimed to rule their particular kingdom, and adopted some of the conventions of those kingdoms. Like, the Ptolemies were pharaohs of Egypt, and the Seleucids were shahs of Persia, etc. But if the Argead Dynasty persisted, all of its scions would have a claim to Alexander's entire legacy, and would attempt to claim rulership over Egypt, Persia, etc etc. So the culture of rulership would be more Macedonian, and less Egyptian, Persian, or whatever.

...idk if I'm making sense, I'm really tired.

I’m not sure about that. Remember Alexander made his generals marry Persian wives. The Diadochi just divorced them as soon as Alexander died, before those marriages created children. It seems Alexander’s ambition was a Perso-Hellenic Empire evidenced by the policy he enforced on his generals and his own marriages not to Macedonians or Hellenes but to easterners.

The move of the capital to Persia and Alexander’s usage of Persian customs did a lot to antagonise the Greeks because they recognised what he was trying to do.

I think if Alexander lives longer but his heirs end up partitioning the Empire along lines similar to the Diadochi, they’d still provincialise because Alexander himself claimed and took the trapping of Egyptian/Persian rulership when he conquered. If the alt successor wars fail to reunite the empire the Argead Dynasts in their partitioned realms will eventually indigenise to mixed degrees because it will strengthen their local rules if wider rulership of the Alexandrian Empire becomes more of a distant dream.

Through saying that, I could see there being a complicated dynastic relationship between Argead claimants which could keep the idea of the Alexandrian Empire alive even if the political dynamic fractured.

 

[tus3]

Alexander's unlikely to survive much longer and assuming he does I don't think his empire would succeed him because ultimately there always will be someone to carve it up, it could even be his own sons; the Empire is just too overstretched.

Achaemenid Persia had already survived two centuries without being fully carved up; at most border regions like Ionia or Egypt had became independent.
So, if Alexander lives long enough and manages to set up a decent succession (two big ifs), collapse or balkanization seems unlikely in my uninformed opinion.

It wasn't about being power hungry, just most obvious common sense, atleast if you're going by Herodotus's histories (like Alexander definitely was)

Do we have a more recent source?
Even assuming Herodotus' was correct in his claims of tribute (some believe that the large amounts of tribute paid by India was a translation error), his Histories are about a century old by then.

However, unlike OTL, it's possible that Alexander's successors wouldn't provincialise. In OTL, all of the Macedonian kingdoms had a Hellenic ruling caste -- but their rulers only claimed to rule their particular kingdom, and adopted some of the conventions of those kingdoms. Like, the Ptolemies were pharaohs of Egypt, and the Seleucids were shahs of Persia, etc. But if the Argead Dynasty persisted, all of its scions would have a claim to Alexander's entire legacy, and would attempt to claim rulership over Egypt, Persia, etc etc. So the culture of rulership would be more Macedonian, and less Egyptian, Persian, or whatever.

I’m not sure about that.

Not to mention that if Alexander lives long enough they could end up with 'crown prince' from an Achaemenid princess which had been raised by his Persian mother.
Well, then we could have even more local conventions being taken over.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Achaemenid Persia had already survived two centuries without being fully carved up; at most border regions like Ionia or Egypt had became independent.
So, if Alexander lives long enough and manages to set up a decent succession (two big ifs), collapse or balkanization seems unlikely in my uninformed opinion.

Achaemenid Persia suffered for centuries from internal infighting and rebellious satraps, and it was a very decentralized state, any state of that size who tries to be centralized (which would be Alexander's goal if he doesn't go for any other conquest) would face a lot of troubles, not counting the fact that Alexander had a lot of problems with his generals in his later years so he could get couped or become totally paranoid.