What If Alexander the Great Left His Empire to One Person?

by Guest Tue Feb 10, 2015 7:38 pm

As Alexander the Great lay on his deathbed in 323 B.C., his generals reportedly asked to whom he left his empire. "To the strongest," Alexander said, according to historians.
"And, of course, they all started fighting about who the strongest was," said Philip Freeman, a professor of classics at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa, and author of the book, "Alexander the Great" (Simon & Schuster, 2011). "Pretty much right away his generals started fighting over who got his empire, and they divided it up."
Alexander's empire stretched from Greece to the Indus River in present-day Pakistan, an impressive territory of about 2 million square miles (5.2 million square kilometers). The Roman Empire exceeded Alexander's in size, but the king built his faster, in just 13 years, before he died at age 32.

With his passing, Alexander the Great left an unborn son and a crowd of ambitious generals. His generals eagerly filled the power vacuum, and his rivals killed his son before the boy's 12th birthday. [10 Reasons Alexander the Great Was, Well … Great!]
At the Partition of Babylon in 323 B.C., rulers split the empire into sections, with Greece, Macedonia and southeastern Europe making up one portion, Asia Minor (present-day Turkey) another and northern Africa a third. Western and central Asia went to other rulers.
Ptolemy, a Macedonian general who served with Alexander, created a separate empire in northern Africa and southern Syria. At first, Ptolemy ruled as an appointed leader, but in 305 B.C., he declared himself king. The Ptolemaic dynasty ruled for 275 years, from 305 B.C. to Cleopatra VII's passing in 30 B.C.

One empire, one emperor?

But what if Alexander had explicitly left his kingdom to one person? Could this person have further expanded his empire, or at least continued to keep it together despite its incredible size?

http://www.livescience.com/48448-what-if-alexander-the-great.html

by Guest Tue Feb 10, 2015 10:30 pm

Did anyone open the link?
I found this hypothesis very interesting:

But if one person had continued the empire, the history of the world would have changed, historians told Live Science. A magnetic leader with military brilliance could have invaded Sicily and Rome when Rome was heavily involved in fighting its rivals in the Samnite Wars, which spanned, though not continuously, from 343 to 290. A well-timed invasion would have given Alexander's successor an enormous advantage, and, if successful, could have prevented the Roman Empire from forming, said Kenneth Sacks, professor of history and classics at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. Such a giant Greek and Macedonian empire could have altered the religious history of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Sacks said.

It's possible that some Jews would have become more Hellenized than they are today under such an empire, as Greek culture had already influenced some Jews at the time, Sacks said. For example, Hellenized Jews tended to follow fewer dietary rules and may have tried to hide their circumcisions in the Greek gymnasium, where athletes competed in the nude, he added.

In contrast, Muslims might have become less Hellenized than they are today, because they may have not been as exposed to it, Sacks noted. For instance, the Byzantine emperor, Justinian I, persecuted Greek philosophers when he closed the Platonic Academy in Athens in A.D. 529. In response, the philosophers began moving east, away from the empire. Eventually, after Islam arose, many of the philosophers moved to Baghdad and strongly influenced Islamic thinkers with Neoplatonism, Sacks said.
And Christianity, without the backdrop of the Roman Empire, might not have spread to the West, Sacks said, explaining how the Church used the empire's protected roads and harbor systems to spread the gospel. Moreover, "the Church precisely copied the organizational pattern of the Roman Empire, assuring it control and stability," Sacks said.
The continuation of Alexander's empire also would have changed modern-day maps.

"If there's no Roman Empire, there's no Europe as we know it," Sacks said. "So who knows what happens to Europe. It's still not Christian in any sense, or if there is Christianity, it probably would not have spread to Europe. It would have probably been localized as one of these Christian sects in the Middle East, many of which died out." Without Rome, Europe would not have Roman technology, such as the aqueducts that carried water from distant sources to populated areas, and the use of concrete in harbors, which helped lead to the Renaissance, Sacks added.Yet, no such leader existed. "None of these field marshals seem to exhibit the same kind of great vision that Alexander exhibited," Sacks said. "Alexander had a vision of how to stabilize an empire, how to maintain an empire, and none of his successors really demonstrated that capacity."

What would the hypothetical alternative west look like today?

by veya_victaous Tue Feb 10, 2015 10:40 pm

I don't think so
If his son was older then maybe

part of his success was he was surrounded by very ambitious men that he managed to direct towards one goal, we can see they start to advance their own causes as the campaign reaches completion. it is highly unlikely they would have accepted his choice if it didn't go to their way, so some sort of civil war would have been inevitable.
Ptolemy and Lysander both clearly had designs on their own kingdoms almost immediately securing there chosen capitals before he was even buried.

and technically he had stopped expanding before he died anyway due to the Army not wanting to go on..

by veya_victaous Tue Feb 10, 2015 10:42 pm

interesting idea's on Rome.. As it definitely did define most of Europe's 'values' and power structures
although I wonder how that would have affected Carthage? without the Romans to beat them?

the world could indeed be a very different place.

by Guest Tue Feb 10, 2015 11:10 pm

veya_victaous wrote:I don't think so
If his son was older then maybe

part of his success was he was surrounded by very ambitious men that he managed to direct towards one goal, we can see they start to advance their own causes as the campaign reaches completion. it is highly unlikely they would have accepted his choice if it didn't go to their way, so some sort of civil war would have been inevitable.
Ptolemy and Lysander both clearly had designs on their own kingdoms almost immediately securing there chosen capitals before he was even buried.

and technically he had stopped expanding before he died anyway due to the Army not wanting to go on..

Veya we are not really talking about a candidate here s already stated none live up to Alexander, though am interested on who you think might be worthy. It maybe interesting if he had lived long enough to raise his son into a champion as he was. That can be an alternative I guess.
I am interested more on a hypothetical world and how different it would look today.
I mean this means Australia, the US, how would they be today, as it is very thought provoking

by Guest Tue Feb 10, 2015 11:16 pm

Carthage is an interesting point but again would Greece as it did have also colonies in Sicily have stemmed any Carthaginian advances westward?

by veya_victaous Wed Feb 11, 2015 12:26 am

but Greece generally faced East, At least until Rome rose
Carthaginian control of Spain and Western north Africa means Greeks may have left Europe to them.. scratch

Impossible to say the effect it would have had. It could have bought Buddhism to Europe over 2000 years ago if it continued on into India. Abrahamic religion would never even have got a chance to develop.

the Religious political and social possibilities are endless. Would probably of been good for LGBT people as most of the hate for them comes from the Roman culture. And Alexander himself seem quite pro-multicultural literally millennia before it becomes a mainstream idea.

Implications for Australia and USA are too hard... they could have remained separate entities. in which case I guess I would have been the same as If Europeans didn't come over.

Aboriginals would have come into contact with Polynesians (Maori) probably within a century or 2 anyway as the Maori had covered New Zealand pretty quick and had proven to be able to navigate the distance between NZ and Australia (having come from Tonga and Samoa).
the Warrior culture of the Maori would have smashed a lot of Aboriginal traditional culture, they still would have bought construction, stonework, settlements and warfare.
the implications for the Aboriginals are not really any better... Someone would have come to take some of their land... and Maori being one of the few native people to fight Britain to a draw means the Aboriginals would be very unlikely to defeat them.

by Guest Wed Feb 11, 2015 5:47 am

Alexander had plans to invade Italy, so who knows how far the Greeks would have expanded to the West, again try thinking outside the box.
I would hardly say Rome was anti-homosexual when homosexuals could marry and was practiced wide spread. It was Christianity more than anything that brought about the poor views on homosexuality, so no idea how you think the prejudice of today is down to the Romans. This is basically letting Christianity off the hook big time, for the very fact it has been this backward institution behind such homophobia that we see today. Very doubtful that Buddhism would have spread westward, there is no reason to believe this based on its present expansion.

Well there is a big view to look at the spread of how long the Celtic culture would of and could have remained the dominant culture, where women were held in high standing given as much rights as men. Without the spread of the Roman Empire, its already huge and wide spread influence would no doubt have remained, as it was the lure of the Roman Empire that brought about Germanic tribes to conquer and settle in the prosperous Roman Empire. It is doubtful many would have stayed, without the Civilization that the Romans had built up, which many Germanic tribes wanted.

Celtic women were distinct in the ancient world for the liberty and rights they enjoyed and the position they held in society. Compared to their counterparts in Greek, Roman, and other ancient societies, they were allowed much freedom of activity and protection under the law. The Iron Age Celts were nevertheless a patriarchal people and for the most part men had the ultimate power in politics and the home. Despite this, ancient Celtic women remain an inspiring example of womanhood from the past.

http://www.celtlearn.org/pdfs/women.pdf

Considering we now how far reaching the Celtic culture was, we could have seen an advance in an already highly evolved society. In fact the Celts actually both sacked Rome and invaded Greece of which could have had two affects. One making the Greeks if with a more powerful empire expand into the Celtic territories though unlikely Britain or make them not push any further east. Though clearly Greek influence would also play a part within these cultures, bringing about a more sophisticated influence. The Roman was more technological and did not have the great thinkers that Greece did. So there is any possibilities here with adaptions of Greek advancements used, which were highly advanced also, though they did have slavery also. The Vikings could have played later on a far more influential aspect especially in America where its expansion could have been far greater.

There are many possibilities though to me the est would have still advanced but having more of a Greek/Celtic influence. A Celtic culture that no doubt would have started to have a written language formed from the Greeks. The Carthaginian aspect also must not been down played and what affects this might have had for a very seafaring nation. Though its religious practices were quite appalling.

by veya_victaous Wed Feb 11, 2015 9:31 pm

Brasidas wrote:Alexander had plans to invade Italy, so who knows how far the Greeks would have expanded to the West, again try thinking outside the box.
I would hardly say Rome was anti-homosexual when homosexuals could marry and was practiced wide spread. not really freely and there is example of men given the cognomen 'Athenian' implying Homosexual and while not out right banned found there political advancement limited http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome there was focus on dominate/masculinity and submissive/femininity rahter than actual Homosexuality It was Christianity more than anything that brought about the poor views on homosexuality, so no idea how you think the prejudice of today is down to the Romans. This is basically letting Christianity Constantine Dumped plenty of other part why not the bits about homosexuals? plenty of evidence of him re-enforcing the 'patriarchal ideal' in the parts keep and discarded, Catholicism has more in common with Roman values(and ceremonies)than ancient Israelite values off the hook big time, for the very fact it has been this backward institution behind such homophobia that we see today. Very doubtful that Buddhism would have spread westward, there is no reason to believe this based on its present expansion. Yes there is because at the time Buddhism was spreading East into China, it had highly vocal monks displacing Animalism and Taoism through out Asia.. there is no reason to think that if Alexander(or heir) came upon it and liked it, that it would not have spread through out the empire. You got to keep in mind although non-deist it 'fits' within traditional pantheon religions much better than monotheism (as seem by its adaptation into Hinduism). it also has pathways to godhood something Alexander was very keen on, it would only take one monk with political nonce to Proclaim him another Buddha/God to be treated favourably

Well there is a big view to look at the spread of how long the Celtic culture would of and could have remained the dominant culture, where women were held in high standing given as much rights as men. Without the spread of the Roman Empire, its already huge and wide spread influence would no doubt have remained, as it was the lure of the Roman Empire that brought about Germanic tribes to conquer and settle in the prosperous Roman Empire. It is doubtful many would have stayed, without the Civilization that the Romans had built up, which many Germanic tribes wanted.

Celtic women were distinct in the ancient world for the liberty and rights they enjoyed and the position they held in society. Compared to their counterparts in Greek, Roman, and other ancient societies, they were allowed much freedom of activity and protection under the law. The Iron Age Celts were nevertheless a patriarchal people and for the most part men had the ultimate power in politics and the home. Despite this, ancient Celtic women remain an inspiring example of womanhood from the past.

http://www.celtlearn.org/pdfs/women.pdf

Considering we now how far reaching the Celtic culture was, we could have seen an advance in an already highly evolved society. In fact the Celts actually both sacked Rome and invaded Greece of which could have had two affects. One making the Greeks if with a more powerful empire expand into the Celtic territories though unlikely Britain or make them not push any further east. Though clearly Greek influence would also play a part within these cultures, bringing about a more sophisticated influence. The Roman was more technological and did not have the great thinkers that Greece did. So there is any possibilities here with adaptions of Greek advancements used, which were highly advanced also, though they did have slavery also. The Vikings could have played later on a far more influential aspect especially in America where its expansion could have been far greater. Fair point on the Celt the extent of their spread pre-rome is often understated. But there does seem to be some unrecorded event that pushed the Swedes to move and displace the Vandals and Goths, which in turn sets off the Huns. so there is still a possibility of mass migrations within Europe, although lord knows if Saxons would still end up in England (we could all be speaking Welsh ).

I don't think the Vikings would have expanded in America, they were defeated fairly conclusively, and it is hard to see them getting the numbers needed because of the independent and 'voluntary' nature in which they raised forces, the Scandinavian Kings never really invested much in expansion and often left it up to ambitious boat owners to raise forces for new territory, really they struggled to get enough to conqueror England let alone somewhere across the Atlantic... but if they landed up or down the coast they could have come across a different native American nation that was less hostile.. so it's not impossible.

There are many possibilities though to me the est would have still advanced but having more of a Greek/Celtic influence. A Celtic culture that no doubt would have started to have a written language formed from the Greeks. The Carthaginian aspect also must not been down played and what affects this might have had for a very seafaring nation. Though its religious practices were quite appalling. interesting... if you expand the seafaring/trader aspect... what if they had meet up with South Americans? we could still be sacrificing people to our gods

by Guest Wed Feb 11, 2015 9:41 pm

erm Veya...we still ARE sacrificing people to our gods....

the sacrifices are our soldiers and the god is money.......

by veya_victaous Wed Feb 11, 2015 9:49 pm

darknessss wrote:erm Veya...we still ARE sacrificing people to our gods....

the sacrifices are our soldiers and the god is money.......

soldiers die for politicians not gods geek

still... no stone tables anymore....
What If Alexander the Great Left His Empire to One Person? 3201073460

by Guest Wed Feb 11, 2015 9:50 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
darknessss wrote:erm Veya...we still ARE sacrificing people to our gods....

the sacrifices are our soldiers and the god is money.......

soldiers die for politicians not gods

still... no stone tables anymore....

what do the politicians worship.....money.....

by Guest Wed Feb 11, 2015 9:50 pm

who needs stone tables......

by veya_victaous Wed Feb 11, 2015 10:18 pm

darknessss wrote:who needs stone tables......

I like stone tables bounce

by Guest Wed Feb 11, 2015 10:24 pm

take up a post in a mortuary then......

by veya_victaous Wed Feb 11, 2015 10:44 pm

Anyway what do you think?

Might we be welsh speaking Druids if Alexander empire lasted?

by Guest Wed Feb 11, 2015 11:01 pm

dunno about welsh speaking, welsh isnt the only "celtic language"
cornish, breton (which is linguistically more similar to cornish than is welsh)
then we have the Gallic "scots"

could be saxon, there is nothing to say the saxon invasions would not have occured. however you have a point because the celts would have been much stronger by not being decimated by the romans. And against the saxons would have proved a formidable and effective enemy.....

by Guest Thu Feb 12, 2015 3:29 am

veya_victaous wrote:[not really freely and there is example of men given the cognomen 'Athenian' implying Homosexual and while not out right banned found there political advancement limited http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome there was focus on dominate/masculinity and submissive/femininity rahter than actual HomosexualityConstantine Dumped plenty of other part why not the bits about homosexuals? plenty of evidence of him re-enforcing the 'patriarchal ideal' in the parts keep and discarded, Catholicism has more in common with Roman values(and ceremonies)than ancient Israelite values[Yes there is because at the time Buddhism was spreading East into China, it had highly vocal monks displacing Animalism and Taoism through out Asia.. there is no reason to think that if Alexander(or heir) came upon it and liked it, that it would not have spread through out the empire. You got to keep in mind although non-deist it 'fits' within traditional pantheon religions much better than monotheism (as seem by its adaptation into Hinduism). it also has pathways to godhood something Alexander was very keen on, it would only take one monk with political nonce to Proclaim him another Buddha/God to be treated favourably
]interesting... if you expand the seafaring/trader aspect... what if they had meet up with South Americans? we could still be sacrificing people to our gods. Fair point on the Celt the extent of their spread pre-rome is often understated. But there does seem to be some unrecorded event that pushed the Swedes to move and displace the Vandals and Goths, which in turn sets off the Huns. so there is still a possibility of mass migrations within Europe, although lord knows if Saxons would still end up in England (we could all be speaking Welsh ).I don't think the Vikings would have expanded in America, they were defeated fairly conclusively, and it is hard to see them getting the numbers needed because of the independent and 'voluntary' nature in which they raised forces, the Scandinavian Kings never really invested much in expansion and often left it up to ambitious boat owners to raise forces for new territory, really they struggled to get enough to conqueror England let alone somewhere across the Atlantic... but if they landed up or down the coast they could have come across a different native American nation that was less hostile.. so it's not impossible.

What on earth are you going on about Constantine who was the very later part of the Roman Empire which was a small resurgence by him but still in the same death throws by then the Empire where again he became Christian and made Christianity the state religion of the Empire. So it had much to do with the influence of Christianity which by then was as popular as Mithraism in the Roman Empire. Until the 3rd century there was no laws against homosexuality. It was seen as effeminate and suitable only with slaves or prostitutes, but it was not illegal. Also in the Greek world it was very much acceptable in many City states and very much so in Macedonia itself, where homosexual marriage was very much legal in many of the Greek City states. Not all and some Greek Philosophers condemned as well as approved of homosexuality. The Macedonians, like the Spartans and Thebans, very much took the root of warriors having a homosexual bond, in fact Spartan women shaved their heads to look like men to attract the Spartan warriors.

So because basically the Roman culture infected by Christianity and how it did not have great thinkers like Greece change the social fabric for homosexuality and also other pagan worship through the ills of Christianity. Again it is very doubtful that such eastern religions would have spread, where already there were highly evolved Celtic or viking beliefs which would have as they the later did with Christians butcher them, I doubt some peace loving Buddhist would have got very far trying to convert Vikings who had gods based on war. Again though you are missing the whole point about a hypothetical western world, whether the Carthaginians would have had an impact. Would the Jews have gained autonomy fro the Greeks and thus nullifying a need for a messiah, thus basically taking away the one thing Jesus played up to being?
You see there is far much more here, where if Christ would have been a non-entity and just some great teacher as he was and nothing more, then with no Christian religion but a more open Judaism getting off the ground, with it being very much restricted to the Middle East, would we then have even seen the rise of Islam. Being as much of Islam is copied from Judaism and Christianity. Think of the implications here and if there may have without these religions have been far more religious tolerance as there certainly was under the Greeks and the Romans until Christianity came along.

Today we see so much Celtic, Anglo Saxon, Viking, Norman and Roman influence, where without the Romans and thus Christianity, things could have shaped very differently. Like I say women were very much treated with equality in the Celtic times and there is much more to look at here which you are not doing. Also the Celts were much more advanced than people realize especially in metal workings and art. Even the Greeks record the Celts practicing homosexuality as well by the way. It seems the Celts were very advanced for their time on having equality for many groups. They of course still had elitist but they were leaps and bounds above many of ancient civilizations. The Vikings did expand into America and this would have been further without the constant battles fought over European supremacy, which the Vikings were lured in the Still Byzantine empire for hire as mercenaries and plunder.

by veya_victaous Thu Feb 12, 2015 4:10 am

Judaism wouldn't have lasted.
Entirely Constantine picking up monotheism, If he hadn't it would probably have disappeared by now.
Roman Dislike of Homosexuality was entirely because it was popular in Greece. Romans liked to insult Greeks for the same reason Americans And Aussies like teasing Brits.

look at your list of Peoples, NONE of them are monotheists but Post-Constantine Romans. Judaism was tiny, if it wasn't enforced by Rome and established through out southern Europe, I can't see it getting to the point of displacing the Norse gods. it is entirely reliant on the conversion or Traditional Roman institutions into Catholic ones If that never happened People would not have abandoned the old gods.

Viking never expanded beyond the first settlement in any permanent way and gave up after a decade or so. they found significant resistance from the natives that prevented them establishing a decent foothold for expansion.

According to the Saga of Erik the Red, Þorfinnr "Karlsefni" Þórðarson and a company of 160 men, going south from Greenland traversed an open stretch of sea, found Helluland, another stretch of sea, Markland, another stretch of sea, the headland of Kjalarnes, the Wonderstrands, Straumfjörð and at last a place called Hóp, a bountiful place where no snow fell during winter. However, after several years away from Greenland, they chose to turn back to their homes when they realised that they would otherwise face an indefinite conflict with the natives.

by Guest Thu Feb 12, 2015 4:25 am

veya_victaous wrote:Judaism wouldn't have lasted.
Entirely Constantine picking up monotheism, If he hadn't it would probably have disappeared by now.
Roman Dislike of Homosexuality was entirely because it was popular in Greece. Romans liked to insult Greeks for the same reason Americans And Aussies like teasing Brits.

look at your list of Peoples, NONE of them are monotheists but Post-Constantine Romans. Judaism was tiny, if it wasn't enforced by Rome and established through out southern Europe, I can't see it getting to the point of displacing the Norse gods. it is entirely reliant on the conversion or Traditional Roman institutions into Catholic ones If that never happened People would not have abandoned the old gods.

Viking never expanded beyond the first settlement in any permanent way and gave up after a decade or so. they found significant resistance from the natives that prevented them establishing a decent foothold for expansion.
According to the Saga of Erik the Red, Þorfinnr "Karlsefni" Þórðarson and a company of 160 men, going south from Greenland traversed an open stretch of sea, found Helluland, another stretch of sea, Markland, another stretch of sea, the headland of Kjalarnes, the Wonderstrands, Straumfjörð and at last a place called Hóp, a bountiful place where no snow fell during winter. However, after several years away from Greenland, they chose to turn back to their homes when they realised that they would otherwise face an indefinite conflict with the natives.

OMG that is completely wrong again. The practice of homosexuality in Roman times was widespread again it was seen as effeminate, but was not illegal, so you can keep ignoring the facts all you like and to say Judaisms would not have survived fails to see how much it was accepted by the Greeks to be practiced bar one episode, which caused the Jews to revolt from the actions of one ruler Antiochus of the Seleucid Empire. Jewish influence had spread very much throughout the Middle East all the way to the capital of forward thinking in Alexandra in Egypt. You really fail to factor in many aspects of history. Look again how the Romans twice decimated the Jewish population with the revolts in both 66 and 135 CE. There would still be a very highly populated number of Jews in Palestine without the Romans hatred of the Jews, all of which you are not factoring in here. The Jews by and large under the Greeks was actually a tie for prosperity for them. Wat would the map of Palestine look today with a very populated Jewish Palestine, would we have all the crap today we see, being as again would Islam have gotten off the ground with no big Christian movements influence as it certainly did the birth of Islam? Again think about the many factors at play here, which you are neglecting at every turn Veya.

I never claimed it would displace Norse gods, try reading what has been written, what I said was that the power of the belief in Norse Gods would have stemmed any spreading of Bhuddism which was at that time too pacifistic. Being as with Christianity it certainly has justification to purify non-Believers like the Vikings or convert them through conflicts, The Christians were not pacifists by the 4th century and fought many conflicts in the name of Christianity.

You are still failing to grasp that without a Roman Empire, which the Eastern one was still thriving at the time of Vikings it is probable that less would have been drain east as mercenaries. Again you cannot think outside the box, where there is numerous possibilities here which you are not thinking about. Would have the Carthaginians spread to the America's being as they were a seafaring nation. There is loads to think about here and you are thinking very negatively off a poor historical knowledge bases you have

by veya_victaous Thu Feb 12, 2015 4:54 am

And you fail to consider that with out Byzantine holding land in the east WHY would they bother travelling across oceans? Byzantine is the only thing that checked the Normans. the Papal states more or less admitted they needed to make a deal with them to survive. Why wouldn't the Viking take Europe first?

So the Jews would have been a little sect... monotheism would have been on the outer still without Roman enforcement and switch they still had no hope of becoming mainstream.

Actually Buddhism thrived in the 3 kingdoms period in China, an era unmatched in Europe for the amount of battles. Buddhist monks were VERY good at getting themselves in with leaders in administration roles. The fact they converted so many Mongol proves they can convert he most brutal warriors. They wouldn't have need to battle anywhere near as much since they wouldn't be trying to deny Odin, Just adding more branches to Yggdrasil. Buddha must have Also nailed himself to the tree of Knowledge just like Odin. Bodhi Tree, peepal tree or Yggdrasil all fit in Buddhism.

by Guest Thu Feb 12, 2015 6:18 am

Now I have heard all the nonsense I am going to hear, apparently the Byzantine checked the advance of the Vikings even though they and others like the Sassanid Empire hired them as mercenaries?
Seriously do not waste my time on this you have not the first clue what you are talking about and what you cannot even see is that if there was a Greek massive Empire what need would the Greeks need of Viking mercenaries? The whole hypothesis is on Alexanders vast empire being retained which incorporated both these later empires. Second many Greeks converted to Judaism, they were called Hellenistic Jews, where again the Romans but paid to many Jews, again which you are ignoring. In other words again the Romans decimated them.
Sorry but I am not going to waste my time further on this with you when you have not the first clue what you are talking about I hope others who know history will be interested, so stop wasting my time on a subject you know little about.

Thank you

by veya_victaous Thu Feb 12, 2015 6:28 am

Plus on Buddhism in China you have to consider that it is quite similar to Catholicism...

Although the Philosophies are different the Institutions are very similar;
they establish themselves as the 'educators' of rulers
they establish themselves as 'administrators'
they become highly politically active taking 'adviser' roles
try to have a monopoly on information/literacy.
often use the above roles to discredit/destroy rival religions
And As Institutions often act in complete contradiction to their stated philosophy.

If they managed to Convince a leader like Alexander there is every reason to believe they could have spread drastically.

by Guest Thu Feb 12, 2015 6:38 am

Which shows you have little understanding of the corruption of men, let alone the fact Alexander thought he was the son of a God. The fact is both did come into contact with each other and it did help it spread through the east but not the west. There certainly was an interaction between the cultures, as have you never head of the Kushan Empire. So we already know that it did not spread Westwards, but it did in the East into the Indian Sub-Continent.
So again please stop wasting my time, where you would have known about the Kushan Empire where the cultures and religions did thrive together. The fact is Alexander was very tolerant of other religions, the point is though even under Greek influence and control of the area for at least 3 centuries, it did not spread Westwards.

by Guest Thu Feb 12, 2015 6:46 am

Look up Pyrrho of Elis and Pyyhonism, which shows such concepts where brought back to Greece but certainly did not catch on, but he traveled with Alexander into the Indian campaigns as did other philosophers.

Catch you later Veya

by veya_victaous Thu Feb 12, 2015 6:48 am

Brasidas wrote:Now I have heard all the nonsense I am going to hear, apparently the Byzantine checked the advance of the Vikings even though they and others like the Sassanid Empire hired them as mercenaries? Exactly that stopped them conquering and divided them, the exact same strategy Rome had deployed with border barbarians for centuries.. you really are simple and cant think beyond a liner train of thought
Seriously do not waste my time on this you have not the first clue what you are talking about and what you cannot even see is that if there was a Greek massive Empire what need would the Greeks need of Viking mercenaries? The whole hypothesis is on Alexanders vast empire being retained which incorporated both these later empires. So you think it would still be around I would still assume that by 900AD it would have fallen, as there is still what ever event caused to swedes to move and start the mass migrations that ended western Romes empire(Vandal, Goth, Hun, Saxon, Frank All invaded central/west Europe long before Norse and Danes) Second many Greeks converted to Judaism, they were called Hellenistic Jews, where again the Romans but paid to many Jews, again which you are ignoring. In other words again the Romans decimated them. And So would any other polytheist power eventually, their in your own words MOST persecuted, pretty obvious why when you deny everyone's gods and call yourself the chosen people
Sorry but I am not going to waste my time further on this with you when you have not the first clue what you are talking about I hope others who know history will be interested, so stop wasting my time on a subject you know little about.
You know very little history outside of the euro-centric perspective. Plus So old is your info... Even Calling them Vikings that really makes me doubt you know anything but pop culture of Norse Dane & Swede that participated in Viking

Thank you

And If you tell me they came from Germany I will Laugh My Fucking Ass off
They Came Through Germany It has been established through archaeological finds that the Goths and Vandal came from what is now Sweden.

by Guest Thu Feb 12, 2015 6:52 am

PMSL never laughed such incompetence on history made up and invented by someone who clearly as never studied history
Again please stop embarrassing yourself on topics you know very little about, as I have lost count on how many times I have corrected you on so many of your points.
I suggest you read up on this topic if you wish to continue with as it is a hypothesis of a "surviving" Alexander Empire.

Words really fail me and worry me if you are an endorsement of the history being taught in Australian schools

I have to go to work, but stop posting nonsense please

by veya_victaous Thu Feb 12, 2015 6:58 am

Brasidas wrote:Look up Pyrrho of Elis and Pyyhonism, which shows such concepts where brought back to Greece but certainly did not catch on, but he traveled with Alexander into the Indian campaigns as did other philosophers.

Catch you later Veya

YES but never adopted by a Ruler, Which is the Point.

IF it had been adopted by Alexander or Heir, Which as you can become a 'god' in Buddhism is possible.
Abrahamic monotheism only became dominate AFTER been adopted by a powerful ruler..

Even the spread of Abrahamic monotheism in Norse was by a powerful leader
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olaf_Tryggvason

by Guest Thu Feb 12, 2015 7:54 am

It was never adopted even when he personally choosen these philosophers who brought back such wisdom from the east, showing he would have never adopted something where he in fact claimed to be a son of God himself the point you miss. He certainly embraced other religions but never practiced their philosophies, what he do was used them to endorse his deivine position, like he did in Egypt.

Why on earth do you keep going on about the spread of Judaism, when I said it would have been limited as it was to the Hellenistic world? My views is more on if the Jews had obtain some sort of autonomy which Alexander certainly did with those he conquered to the point that if they had not been decimated twice by the Romans, would have had the issue today over the rights of who belongs in Palestine. Even if the Muslims had still formed, would they have been able to conquer many of the territories of the Byzantine and Sassanid Empire? Each had weakened each other extensively to the point they were easy prey to the newly formed Muslim armies. You see this is why you need to think outside the box, becasuse there is so many alternatives but they have to be realistic to what actually happened historically.

What you have to look at is what could have taken on the Alexander Empire which included Italy and Sicily. We already have touched upon the Carthaginians, the Celts also invaded, there would have been later problems with the Germanic tribes and also the Huns and the Alans. All these are the interesting factors here, where for example would the germanic tribes had look for easier pickings eastward fleeing from the Huns, where they lands were stormed by them. The reality is the Roman Empire was the only place they could flee into but a Greek Empire may not have included much of western Europe. Again there is many factors here but Veya use real history, not inventions

by Sponsored content

What If Alexander the Great Left His Empire to One Person?

What If Alexander the Great Left His Empire to One Person?

Re: What If Alexander the Great Left His Empire to One Person?

Re: What If Alexander the Great Left His Empire to One Person?

Re: What If Alexander the Great Left His Empire to One Person?

Re: What If Alexander the Great Left His Empire to One Person?

Re: What If Alexander the Great Left His Empire to One Person?

Re: What If Alexander the Great Left His Empire to One Person?

Re: What If Alexander the Great Left His Empire to One Person?

Re: What If Alexander the Great Left His Empire to One Person?

Re: What If Alexander the Great Left His Empire to One Person?

Re: What If Alexander the Great Left His Empire to One Person?

Re: What If Alexander the Great Left His Empire to One Person?

Re: What If Alexander the Great Left His Empire to One Person?

Re: What If Alexander the Great Left His Empire to One Person?

Re: What If Alexander the Great Left His Empire to One Person?

Re: What If Alexander the Great Left His Empire to One Person?

Re: What If Alexander the Great Left His Empire to One Person?

Re: What If Alexander the Great Left His Empire to One Person?

Re: What If Alexander the Great Left His Empire to One Person?

Re: What If Alexander the Great Left His Empire to One Person?

Re: What If Alexander the Great Left His Empire to One Person?

Re: What If Alexander the Great Left His Empire to One Person?

Re: What If Alexander the Great Left His Empire to One Person?

Re: What If Alexander the Great Left His Empire to One Person?

Re: What If Alexander the Great Left His Empire to One Person?

Re: What If Alexander the Great Left His Empire to One Person?

Re: What If Alexander the Great Left His Empire to One Person?

Re: What If Alexander the Great Left His Empire to One Person?

Re: What If Alexander the Great Left His Empire to One Person?

Re: What If Alexander the Great Left His Empire to One Person?