Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Macedonia was a backwards outlyer on the margins of Greek civilization. The most important legacies of what we consider the Greek Golden Age was predominantly Atheninan and following the Persian Wars Athens built a mini-empire in the region. But over 20 years of war between Athens and Sparta weakened Greece. It paved the way for Phillip II of Macedon and later his son Alexander.
Yes, and when we speak of 'Greece' today we are speaking of a much different place. Prior to conquest by Rome, there was no 'Greece', but Greek city states. Alliences were created while Athens and Sparta destroyed each other but there were distinct cultural differences between these states.
It's ironic that the 'Greece' we remember as it evolved in time into us with its philosophy and political forms, took place in less than a century in the state of Athens. Most of those who we think of honored thinkers were in their own time forced to silence or executed as they interfered with the powers that be that wanted to destroy Sparta more than any other concern.
Just how 'Greek' Alexander was is questionable. Macedonia was the hinterlands and in his time some did not consider him 'greek'. Near the time he died he'd adapted large chunks of Persian culture as well, including the manner of dressing and often used their language. In a sense, Persia conqured him and not the other way around.
It's possible that if Alexander lived his empire would not have been subdivided by his generals into smaller empires. No Seleucid Empire and no Ptolemaic Empire ... and no Parthian Empire for that matter.
If there was no Ptolemaic Empire, Alexandria would not have risen to it's stature as the one of the greatest cities in the ancient world side by side with Athens and Rome. That means there might not have been the Great Library, the Museum, the Serapeum, the Pharos Lighthouse (one of the Seven Wonders) and no Cleopatra. Withouth those things there might not have been a Philo of Alexandria, the Septuagint of the Hebrew Torah, no Sosigenes of Alexandria the tutor of Cleopatra to advise Julius Caesar on the 365 1/4 day calender known as the Julian Calender, no Hypatia of Alexandria.
We can only guess what the result might have been.
True, that particular highly dysfunctional, marginally competent Ptolemmaic clan would not have ruled Egypt. It would have instead been Alexander and his heirs. But the things you mention were the result of Greek cultural influence not Ptolemy exceptionalism and would have likely arisen under Alexanders dynasty. And assuming Alexander & his heirs were more competent, Alexandria and the entire Egyptian region might have become far greater than under Ptolemy.
Heres an interesting thought,
I think it likely that if Alexander had an heir who could have extended it for a generation of two, the attentions of the Greeks would have likely turned to the Italian peninsular and this would have altered the course of Roman development. I personally believe that the Macedonians did not posess the administrative nor cultural sophistication to have established the sort of very long lasting empire that eventually arose in Rome. But their foray into that region may have very likely resulted in the Roman empire never rising. Then does Christianity ever become more than a minor regional cult, minus the imperial administrative talent and vision of Paul?
And assuming that Christianity never conquers europe, and Alexandria is an even greater center of science and learning under Alexander than the Ptolemys, might civilization have advanced more rapidly in some areas? Or might the absence of a long lived, multi-century expansionist empire like Rome have resulted in longer isolation for backward regions, might such an empire have been more efficient in spreading and forcing upon others more advanced methods and ideas?
True, that particular highly dysfunctional, marginally competent Ptolemmaic clan would not have ruled Egypt. It would have instead been Alexander and his heirs. But the things you mention were the result of Greek cultural influence not Ptolemy exceptionalism and would have likely arisen under Alexanders dynasty. And assuming Alexander & his heirs were more competent, Alexandria and the entire Egyptian region might have become far greater than under Ptolemy.
Heres an interesting thought,
I think it likely that if Alexander had an heir who could have extended it for a generation of two, the attentions of the Greeks would have likely turned to the Italian peninsular and this would have altered the course of Roman development. I personally believe that the Macedonians did not posess the administrative nor cultural sophistication to have established the sort of very long lasting empire that eventually arose in Rome. But their foray into that region may have very likely resulted in the Roman empire never rising. Then does Christianity ever become more than a minor regional cult, minus the imperial administrative talent and vision of Paul?
And assuming that Christianity never conquers europe, and Alexandria is an even greater center of science and learning under Alexander than the Ptolemys, might civilization have advanced more rapidly in some areas? Or might the absence of a long lived, multi-century expansionist empire like Rome have resulted in longer isolation for backward regions, might such an empire have been more efficient in spreading and forcing upon others more advanced methods and ideas?
I agree that they would have noticed Rome. In its beginnings it was very vulnerable and if it did not rise as an empire the whole of Western Culture, not just the Christan part, would have been radically different. Rome succeeded first by defeating the local competition and without that could not have been more than a village with ambition. But it would have left a huge void and the Northern cultures would have raided south anyway. The Vikings would still have gone seeking plunder. Others would have centralized the power and looked towards Europe as a source of plunder and slaves and land to take. There would have been an empire, but it wouldn't have been Roman.
Alexander, as reported by Diodorus, left a sort of "list" of things to do after his death encapsulated in a will as his final orders. Many of them tended to the extravagant, but we can surmise that these would have been the longterm goals of Alexander had he lived:
1. Build a tomb to his father Phillip that would match the splendor of the greatest pyramid in Egypt.
2. Erect a series of great temples in: Delos, Delphi, Dodona, Dium, Amphipolis and Troy.
3. Conquer the Arabian peninsula and the entire Mediterranean basin.
4. Circumnavigate Africa.
5. Encourage the development of great cities throughout the empire and transplant people from Asia to Europe and vice versa, in order to encourage common unity and friendship through inter-marriage and family ties.
So, what might have been different if Alexander lived? We can assume he would have engaged in the above and carved out a larger and earlier version of the Roman Empire. The impact of that is anyone's guess. One interesting thing to me is that like Rome, while Alexander brought Hellenization, he was also influenced heavily by the local cultures. So, I don't think a mono-Hellenistic cultrue would have appeared, but something more akin to the Roman model.
The one interesting piece is that Alexander had a fascination with "what was beyond". That is evidenced by him wanting to circumnavigate Africa. Had that influence for exploration continued, the world could have been a very different place indeed.
Alexander, as reported by Diodorus, left a sort of "list" of things to do after his death encapsulated in a will as his final orders. Many of them tended to the extravagant, but we can surmise that these would have been the longterm goals of Alexander had he lived:
1. Build a tomb to his father Phillip that would match the splendor of the greatest pyramid in Egypt.
2. Erect a series of great temples in: Delos, Delphi, Dodona, Dium, Amphipolis and Troy.
3. Conquer the Arabian peninsula and the entire Mediterranean basin.
4. Circumnavigate Africa.
5. Encourage the development of great cities throughout the empire and transplant people from Asia to Europe and vice versa, in order to encourage common unity and friendship through inter-marriage and family ties.
So, what might have been different if Alexander lived? We can assume he would have engaged in the above and carved out a larger and earlier version of the Roman Empire. The impact of that is anyone's guess. One interesting thing to me is that like Rome, while Alexander brought Hellenization, he was also influenced heavily by the local cultures. So, I don't think a mono-Hellenistic cultrue would have appeared, but something more akin to the Roman model.
The one interesting piece is that Alexander had a fascination with "what was beyond". That is evidenced by him wanting to circumnavigate Africa. Had that influence for exploration continued, the world could have been a very different place indeed.
This is fascinating. It fits the pattern of his life as he seemed to love the challenge and never get enough of it.
I have to agree that it would have resulted in a more Roman type world. He would have been unrecognizable to his Macadonian citizens who stayed behind after Persia. No telling how different the world view would be after all those places.
I suspect it wouldn't have held as long as Rome unless the Greek culture had also altered to one valuing the empire they'd made. But it would have transmitted shared cultures as it traveled, and we still would have a much different world.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
