What if the Macedonian Empire didn't collapse?

[Indian Empire]

What IF the Macedonian Empire never collapsed?

Alright, Alright, the Macedonians probably would have collapsed - eventually. But, how long would that have taken?

well, the short term effect would be small. The Macedonians likely would have conquered India and the Yugoslavia area by approximately 200 BC. Then the Macedonians receive a big challenge - THE ROMANS.

So, here comes the big question. Who would win? Rome or Macedonia? Well, thed Macedonians would have controlled more land, plus had stronger armies (They crushed Carthage in 300 BC, while it took the romans a while to do so.) So, this means the Empire started by Alexander Himself Likely would have won against rome.

But, if the Macedonians beat the Romans, The results would likely be devastating for both sides. with the Macedonians weaker, they still push eastward, conquering Indochina in 400 AD, and Eastern Africa in 450 AD. I truly think things would have began to collapse around 550 - 600 AD, because of Middle East Muslim Rebellions and the cultural break in the empire.

then Macedonia would collapse. The Macedonian Empire at it's greatest extent, circa 550 AD extended from Indochina to Portugal.

Then, Macedonia would become 6 countries, each is below.



The Roman Empire
The Persian Empire
Bengal Horde
The Seljuk Khanate
Greek Khanate
Constantiphole Khanate

So, what would the effects be on today? Most changes would be so small to impact the whole world, but there are a few which do...

1: The Romans would have existed, just not quite as long.

2: The Muslim world isn't quite as large, or might have not even existed. But, I would be very skeptical about it not existing at all though.

3: Europe would have been connected to Asia's riches for MUCH longer, meaning most of the European countries would be more powerful than today. Great Britian would be the powerhouse equivelent to China (Except their would be no stupid polices)

4: the British Empire would have fallen much slower, perhaps even still holding on to parts of Africa today.

5: Asian Dynasties such as the Qing would have to colonize the Americas to keep up with European Superpowers. This means that the whole culture of North America would be much, much different.

So, that is my scenario for what would have happened. But, what do you think would have happened, and why?

[Kelinfort]

Impossible. Even had Macedonia survived more than a few years as an empire, Alexander had no set succession plan, not to mention the huge area of his empire already made it prime for rebellion and invasion.

[Indian Empire]

Impossible. Even had Macedonia survived more than a few years as an empire, Alexander had no set succession plan, not to mention the huge area of his empire already made it prime for rebellion and invasion.

But, what if he did have a succession plan in place?

[Kelinfort]

Impossible. Even had Macedonia survived more than a few years as an empire, Alexander had no set succession plan, not to mention the huge area of his empire already made it prime for rebellion and invasion.

But, what if he did have a succession plan in place?

Even if he had a son or general whom he'd chosen to lead, their skill would likely be very less so than his. His son wouldn't likely be a brilliant military commander, his generals would fight amongst themselves, within a couple generations, Macedonia would devolve into fighting kingdoms. You'd need a line of very effective, strong, intelligent leaders to secure the empire, and history has shown that almost never happens.

[Cyrisnia]

MACEDONIA CAN NOT INTO CLAY.

[Page]

Had Alexander lived a full life and had a successor all of his conquered lands would accept as Emperor, there's still the problem of enforcing rule over such a huge landmass. Rome's empire stretched across the Mediterranean, naval travel is far more efficient than land travel. The problem with ruling an empire across Asia is that it's absolutely massive.

The Mongols may have "ruled" Asia but they only demanded tribute and nominal subjugation, hence why their short-lived empire never succeeded in spreading their language or left any sort of long-lasting cultural legacy.

Another problem with this alternate history projection is that warfare changed at this time with the phalanx going out of style and Roman infantry would have had lots of strategic advantages in open battle over the Macedonians.

And if a long term Macedonian Empire did exist, it would have meant the world would be centralized around Persia rather than Europe.

[Cetatsenia]

Had Alexander lived a full life and had a successor all of his conquered lands would accept as Emperor, there's still the problem of enforcing rule over such a huge landmass. Rome's empire stretched across the Mediterranean, naval travel is far more efficient than land travel. The problem with ruling an empire across Asia is that it's absolutely massive.

The Mongols may have "ruled" Asia but they only demanded tribute and nominal subjugation, hence why their short-lived empire never succeeded in spreading their language or left any sort of long-lasting cultural legacy.

Another problem with this alternate history projection is that warfare changed at this time with the phalanx going out of style and Roman infantry would have had lots of strategic advantages in open battle over the Macedonians.

And if a long term Macedonian Empire did exist, it would have meant the world would be centralized around Persia rather than Europe.

I thought that it wasn't the phalanx going out of style that was the issue, but rather that the phalanx stopped being supported by cavalry and the like and they instead went back to the strategy of just ramming phalanxes together until one side broke. Which isn't a particularly good strategy when you're going up against someone with a more versatile formation like the Romans.

[Dumb Ideologies]

We would be sitting here asking what would have happened if the Empire did collapse.

[TomKirk]

Well, thed Macedonians would have controlled more land...

This is where I think you are missing the whole point. What does "control" mean, in this context? They could impose Greek-speaking chiefs over a wide area, but for a single one of those to effectively control all the others was not plausible at that time.

[Murkwood]

WWI would be Mongols vs. Macedonians.

[Cyrisnia]

Also, why is everything a Khanate?

[Neoconstantius]

If only Alexander had articulated better.

[Indian Empire]

Also, why is everything a Khanate?

More of the Muslim influenced areas are Khanates. The only Full Christian Khanate is the Greek Khanate.

[Napkiraly]

I find it highly unlikely that Alexander would be able to have made it to Indochina.

[Benuty]

I find it highly unlikely that Alexander would be able to have made it to Indochina.

Not to mention the problem of the Maccabee revolt.

[Blazedtown]

Then Kennedy would botch the Cuban Missile Crisis and trigger World War III.

[Shnercropolis]

The Scythians would've taken them out pretty quickly. A big empire is a big target for a bunch of nomads, and the Scythians were tough bitches to mess with.

[Indian Empire]

I find it highly unlikely that Alexander would be able to have made it to Indochina.

Not to mention the problem of the Maccabee revolt.

The Macedonians came before the romans, meaning that the Macedonians were Jewish at the time.

[Shnercropolis]

Not to mention the problem of the Maccabee revolt.

The Macedonians came before the romans, meaning that the Macedonians were Jewish at the time.

Yo, I'm MC Historical Inaccuracy!

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

I find it highly unlikely that Alexander would be able to have made it to Indochina.

The Vietnamese were always far too tough to conquer.

[Benuty]

Not to mention the problem of the Maccabee revolt.

The Macedonians came before the romans, meaning that the Macedonians were Jewish at the time.

Uh...lol, Alexander tolerated second temple Judaism because of its ability to handle being lorded over by foreign powers (to an extent) which is why the Jews cooperated until a successor state started defiling the Second Temple with idols.

[Indian Empire]

The Scythians would've taken them out pretty quickly. A big empire is a big target for a bunch of nomads, and the Scythians were tough bitches to mess with.

The Scythians – the Greeks' name for this nomadic people – inhabited Scythia from at least the 11th century BCE to the 2nd century CE.

that is 1200BCE to 100CE. This means that the Macedonians could have conquered the area between 100-200 CE.

[Benuty]

The Scythians would've taken them out pretty quickly. A big empire is a big target for a bunch of nomads, and the Scythians were tough bitches to mess with.

The Scythians – the Greeks' name for this nomadic people – inhabited Scythia from at least the 11th century BCE to the 2nd century CE.

that is 1200BCE to 100CE. This means that the Macedonians could have conquered the area between 100-200 CE.

It doesn't mean they could have left in this history.

[Napkiraly]

Not to mention the problem of the Maccabee revolt.

The Macedonians came before the romans, meaning that the Macedonians were Jewish at the time.

1) Macedonians weren't Jewish.
2) You're going off of alt history where it doesn't collapse until half way through the 1st century AD. Wouldn't matter if the Romans weren't there or not.
3) The Maccabee Revolt started in 167 BCE in the Seleucid Empire.

[Napkiraly]

The Scythians would've taken them out pretty quickly. A big empire is a big target for a bunch of nomads, and the Scythians were tough bitches to mess with.

The Scythians – the Greeks' name for this nomadic people – inhabited Scythia from at least the 11th century BCE to the 2nd century CE.

that is 1200BCE to 100CE. This means that the Macedonians could have conquered the area between 100-200 CE.

The Macedonians probably wouldn't have been able to take Scythia. Nomads have been historically been difficult to conquer due to...well being nomadic and having a tendency to fire tons of annoying arrows.