What if the Macedonian Empire didn't collapse?

[Cyrisnia]

Macedonia did NOT crush Carthage - it merely beat it up. Rome, on the other hand, crushed it utterly.

When did Macedonia beat up Carthage? There were wars between the Greeks of Magna Graecia in the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE, including one in which King Pyrrhus intervened. As far as I know, Carthage came out of those is fair shape, not beaten up. During the Second Punic War Carthage allied with King Philip V of Macedon, not that it did them any real good.

The Greeks never really did anything to the Carthaginian other than the occasional very small dispute over an Island colony.

[Lydenburg]

Something about the fall of Constantinople Farn doesn't know? Huh. Where's Arch when you need him?

Updated - OK, I've gone back through my sources. Quite certain that the incident in question was first brought to my attention in Constantine Last Emperor of the Greeks, which is a biography of Constantine XI by Chedomil Mijatovich. It wasn't by Runciman, sorry. They evoked a lot of the same sources so I get tripped up sometimes. Mijatovich isn't overly specific, but I derived from his description that all the Greeks were present at a banquet. Runciman's Fall of Constantinople 1453 goes into far greater detail: according to him the defiant minister's name was Loukas Notaras, and the ten doomed chaps were fetched from their homes. Only the sultan and his viziers were at the banquet when he summoned them. A well known tragedy:

http://books.google.com/books?id=qvvdVX ... =html_text

That's only the common story, and by no means the reason why Nostaras was executed.

I'll advise you to reconsider before besmirching the good name of a scholar as Runciman.

[Lydenburg]

Something about the fall of Constantinople Farn doesn't know? Huh. Where's Arch when you need him?

Updated - OK, I've gone back through my sources. Quite certain that the incident in question was first brought to my attention in Constantine Last Emperor of the Greeks, which is a biography of Constantine XI by Chedomil Mijatovich. It wasn't by Runciman, sorry. They evoked a lot of the same sources so I get tripped up sometimes. Mijatovich isn't overly specific, but I derived from his description that all the Greeks were present at a banquet. Runciman's Fall of Constantinople 1453 goes into far greater detail: according to him the defiant minister's name was Loukas Notaras, and the ten doomed chaps were fetched from their homes. Only the sultan and his viziers were at the banquet when he summoned them. A well known tragedy:

http://books.google.com/books?id=qvvdVX ... =html_text

Well, I hadn't heard the story. Nevertheless, saving Sir Steven's grace, Wiki says of the incident:

This story was originally recorded by Doukas (XL,381), a Byzantine Greek who was not living in Constantinople at the time of the fall of the city, but does not appear in accounts by other Greeks who witnessed the conquest. However, Doukas was frequently hostile towards Notaras, so there was no reason for him to praise his dignity.

Your assumptions about the circumstances of Notaras' and his son's and son-in-law's death are not warranted by the passage you linked.

I didn't make any assumptions - I gave two other sources. The wiki page also notably fails to include Runciman's context and the proceeding passages. It only includes the paragraph describing the incident at large.

If it's a history of the Ottoman sultan and male adolescents you wish, I recommend you keep reading at the link.

BTW Wikipedia isn't a credible source. Editors conducting amateur research often misinterpret or overlook things in their writeup. For example, Doukas was not the only Greek writer to speak of the manner of the Duke's execution. See the writings of Sekoundinos.

[GRO II]

if they had endured that long, Macedonians would've been slaughtered by Genghis Khan's horde anyway

[Cetatsenia]

if they had endured that long, Macedonians would've been slaughtered by Genghis Khan's horde anyway

Assuming that old Temujin would ever have been born.

[Utceforp]

if they had endured that long, Macedonians would've been slaughtered by Genghis Khan's horde anyway

Assuming that old Temujin would ever have been born.

While the Mongols might not have come out, the central Asian steppe has a history of a large population increase driving large armies to find new land to conquer, such as the Huns, Magyars, Seljuks and Mongols. Plus, horse archers are a hard tactic to beat. It's very possible that some nomadic group of horse-archers would take it upon themselves to conquer as much as possible, even in this timeline.

[Cetatsenia]

Assuming that old Temujin would ever have been born.

While the Mongols might not have come out, the central Asian steppe has a history of a large population increase driving large armies to find new land to conquer, such as the Huns, Magyars, Seljuks and Mongols. Plus, horse archers are a hard tactic to beat. It's very possible that some nomadic group of horse-archers would take it upon themselves to conquer as much as possible, even in this timeline.

Oh, I know. And I agree that it's entirely possible that this surviving Macedonian Empire could end up falling at the hands of steppe nomads. But in all likelihood it probably wouldn't be the Mongols.

[Napkiraly]

That's only the common story, and by no means the reason why Nostaras was executed.

I'll advise you to reconsider before besmirching the good name of a scholar as Runciman.

I'm not besmirching his name, I'm saying that just because he said that was why doesn't mean that is why. There are other statements as to why he was executed, one being that Mehmed thought of him as a traitor to his former emperor and to the city of Constantinople.

[Napkiraly]

if they had endured that long, Macedonians would've been slaughtered by Genghis Khan's horde anyway

Highly doubt that since in this alt reality, the Macedonian Empire collapses in ~600 AD. That's about 562 years before GK was born.

[Estruia]

All dynasties eventually come to an end.

Dynasties have foundations. Macedonia didn't. It occupied a sacked realm for a time and then it was swept away.

I can't tell if you're joking or not. The Macedonian Empire, though it did not last long, has had one of the most long-lasting impressions on the World. It spread Hellenic culture to nearly every corner of the *important* Ancient World. The Ptolemies ruled in Egypt well into the time of the Romans. Greek/Hellenic culture is what influenced Rome, which has left its mark on the world, that lasts to this day.

So, kindly return to the shadows of Historical ignorance.

[The Greater Hyperborean Realm]

Oh boy, where to begin.

So let's ignore the "how" of the Macedonian conquest of India and just look at the first big problem. Since Greece went and conquered Carthage, Rome, without having fought the Punic Wars, will likely never emerge as the huge conquering empire that needs to new lands to give to retired legionaries. Which means that when Macedonia turns it's attention back west it won't be fighting a Rome possessing North Africa, Hispania, and Gaul, it will be fighting a Rome with just Italia. And easy conquest for an Empire that already holds India, Persia, Anatolia, the Levant, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Greece.

Then later it just collapses? Due to Muslim revolts? (I don't even want to touch on the questionable existence of Islam in this timeline because that will quickly turn into a theological debate) And it breaks into seemingly random khanates (why khanates? Why is a Hellenic empire suddenly Turkish and/or Mongolian?). Why is one of these Khanates the Seljuks? The same Seljuks who historically didn't come into existence until nearly 500 years AFTER this Macedonian falls? And why is one of the Khanates centered around Constantinople? The city of Byzantium wasn't that important a city until Roman Emperor Constantine put the capital there and renamed the city.

And then you go on to mention Great Britain as a power? And the Qing still manage to emerge? The migration patters that lead the Anglo-Saxons to invade Britain and the Qing to topple the Ming will be completely different due to existence of the Massive Macedonian empire and it's later successor states. Not to mention the Socio-Economic climate that allowed both of those to happen (the Romans abandoning Britain and the peasant rebellions wrecking China, respectively) wouldn't exist.

I could probably think of more things but at that point it would just devolve into nitpicking. My point with all this is that history doesn't happen in a vacuum. It's a lot like throwing a stone into a pond; the ripples start out small and centered around where the stone landed but they quickly grow larger and spread further and further away from the epicenter. The pond is history, the stone is the survival of the Macedonian Empire, and the ripples are the things that change.

[Farnhamia]

Well, I hadn't heard the story. Nevertheless, saving Sir Steven's grace, Wiki says of the incident:


Your assumptions about the circumstances of Notaras' and his son's and son-in-law's death are not warranted by the passage you linked.

I didn't make any assumptions - I gave two other sources. The wiki page also notably fails to include Runciman's context and the proceeding passages. It only includes the paragraph describing the incident at large.

If it's a history of the Ottoman sultan and male adolescents you wish, I recommend you keep reading at the link.

BTW Wikipedia isn't a credible source. Editors conducting amateur research often misinterpret or overlook things in their writeup. For example, Doukas was not the only Greek writer to speak of the manner of the Duke's execution. See the writings of Sekoundinos.

It seemed to me you assumed. And WIki is a perfectly good source, on the whole. I find that people tend make disparaging remarks about its reliability when they disagree with what's found there.

*dons Moderator hat* Let's get back on topic, shall we? The topic is not the sexual proclivities of Ottoman sultans and whether they are adequately attested in the historical record, but what might have become had Alexander's empire not broken up.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

The Macedonian Empire would have been to large to have governed. Even the more sophisticated Roman Empire grew to big to govern.

[Trotskylvania]

The Macedonian Empire and Hellenistic culture will have to Persianize if it hopes to survive for long. The problem many successor states of Alexander's empire had was that they were Hellenic chauvinists. Zoroastrianism will have to become part of the imperial cult of the empire, or else the previous imperial culture will reassert itself, as it did historically. The Seleucids, who held most of the Persianized territory, were defeated with a fairly short period of time by irredentist Parthians because they couldn't control nationalism among the Iranian peoples. They were more focused on retaking all of the western territory that Alexander had once held, to the neglect of the richer eastern provinces.

Assuming Alexander's son succeeds him, that's a good start, as he is half Persian and connected to the old imperial house of Cyrus the Great. I suspect historically it wouldn't be really known as a Macedonian Empire if it were to survive, it would be akin to China, where a foreign ruling class assimilated into the local culture

[Benuty]

A more interesting question would be what would happen if the Macedonian Empire hadn't existed at all, and the Achaemenids had remained a powerful state.

Why are people referring to stuff like Christianity and Islam? The Abrahamic religions, except for possibly some form of Judaism, would not exist in this world, and if they did they wouldn't be major. Jesus and Muhammad probably wouldn't have been born.

I wouldn't say some form given Samaritanism, and Judaism already had become separated from one another during their tenure in the return to the land (from exile). So its possible certain groups such as the Yazidi's might exist (not sure when they started, but they are very old) not to mention an even more Hellenized form of Abrahamic monotheism.

That does raise the question of how the Arabic tribes would have dealt with being governed by an empire.

[Indian Empire]

When did Macedonia beat up Carthage? There were wars between the Greeks of Magna Graecia in the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE, including one in which King Pyrrhus intervened. As far as I know, Carthage came out of those is fair shape, not beaten up. During the Second Punic War Carthage allied with King Philip V of Macedon, not that it did them any real good.

The Greeks never really did anything to the Carthaginian other than the occasional very small dispute over an Island colony.

I'm saying that they wouod have if their empire didn't collapse.

[The Sotoan Union]

Unfortunately, most Orthodox Christians couldn't reconcile themselves with pedophilia.

And that's why Byzantium can in no way, shape or form be considered the successor of ancient Greece.

Ancient Greece is dead, with no valid successor since the Roman conquest.

The Macedonian Empire was already huge, and nothing kept it together after Alexander died. There is no way it survives and extends that far.

A better question is what if the Seleucids survived and beat Rome. Their empire was actually stable.

'Stable'. They didn't give a shit about anything happening in the east, consequently lost the east, and were promptly eaten by the Parthians and Romans. They were also - unlike the Ptolemaics - incapable of properly utilising the conquered populations. Where Hellenistic Egypt went on and integrated natives into its military, enabling it to remain remarkably competitive, the Seleucids... Failed to do just that.

Yet they survived for hundreds of years and the Macedonians did not. Point is it's far more plausible then Alexander's empire surviving.

[The Sotoan Union]

When did Macedonia beat up Carthage? There were wars between the Greeks of Magna Graecia in the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE, including one in which King Pyrrhus intervened. As far as I know, Carthage came out of those is fair shape, not beaten up. During the Second Punic War Carthage allied with King Philip V of Macedon, not that it did them any real good.

The Greeks never really did anything to the Carthaginian other than the occasional very small dispute over an Island colony.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek–Punic_Wars