Hey,
What ive always thought was, what if Alexander the Great didnt die so young from his wounds and sickness.

Personally i believe he would've went on conquering the rest of Europe and Asia and possibly beyond. If he did, would the world be a better or worse place to be in if he was victorious over all. I dont study him or his legacy at all, but ive always seen him as a inspiration. So if anyone that knows a fair bit about him, what do you think he might have done if he didnt die so young.

thx

P.s. Im going to start making a "What If" post weekly so watch out for it.

I always wondered that but I think his conquest's were based as much on his skills and bravery as too his immence good fortune. And like they say what goes up must come down his good fortune was tied directly to his deing young. Every action has an opposite and direct reaction. But hypothetically if he kept his good fortune he could have concored India as a whole maybe south east asia, but he wouldnt defeat the Militarily sofisticated and huge number of the Chinese. As far as Europe their was nothing to conquer it was mostly barbarian villages. As far as inner africa it had nothing to offer as the Romans did not go beyond the N Africa as well.

Adama.... you have already told us all that you dont read books because you dont believe them. Is this just intuitive knowledge that you have regarding Alex the Great??
Anyway, back to the "post".... Logistics restricts your success in any campaign. No he wouldnt have conquered the rest of Europe and Asia, his supply lines would have been too stretched.
Cant wait for your next "What if" post, so we can help you with your next History assignment

What if Hitler wasn't defeated, same question... although perhaps if Alexander didn't die early, Adolf wouldn't have been...
And perhaps you and me neither. Small things can have big impact on the course of history, you can't possibly begin to imagine... although I suppose to some it is fun

Barbarian Villages? Villages maybe, but towns too and the celtic tribes who lived in Europe were far from barbarian, they had a complicated system of law, rights for women, art and knowledge was revered. So they chopped a few heads off....
Alexander and Phillip both used Celtic mercenaries, who would probably have been dismayed to discover that Alexander was planning to attack Europe. He died though, so that's ok.
I reckon someone fed him poisoned haggis and then went off to invent Scotland.

anyway, here's some stuff about europe back then.

http://www.watson.org/~leigh/celts.html

Interesting topic. I wonder if he could have kept the entire empire together. Would his heir have been worthy of him? (like Alexander was the worthy heir of Phillip.) I do believe Alexander's idea of mixing of races was both advanced and amazing for his time. However, the basic fact was he was an alcoholic. Would Alexander been able to sustain his brilliance despite his addiction? (Remember how he killed his friend during a party when he was blasted. I think his name was Cleutus.) Would his generals eventually tried to kill him?

Jmes Dean same question
if he hadn't died young
would we even care
the victories of his youth would have been overshadowed by the failures of his maturity

I believe you would be right...

...and I look foward to your future "WHAT IF" questions!

Yes. Conquering golden boy versus mature ruler. Dying young makes a legend. Maturity and the problems of ruling lead to coups and dissatisfaction.

Actually, Alexander's next target, had he not died, would have been the Arabian peninsula. I've no links, but I have read that in several places online and in books about him. He had a knowledge of the growing power of early Rome as well, and perhaps, would have taken them on in the future.

They were so advanced that they created ummmmmmmmmm let me know what it was that they left behind to make them not barbarian.

ever heard the term "Megalith"

Here's a selection of Art.

And, like Saard said -- rights for women, complicated law systems, complex religious practices. Unless you don't think those count as elements of a civilization.

But I've heard Alexander wanted to go into Arabia as well.

--Jaylemurph

Rights for women I guess that didnt last for too long, complicated law system where was it written down did it a\effect history? Complex religion for example???

[Note the topic... I'm not letting you drag me OT again.]

--Jaylemurph

If you got nothing to add thats perfectly alright. If you make a statement then back it up.

The Romans called the Celts barbarians, because they didn’t share the Roman culture.
Rome called a lot of people barbarians who it didn’t understand. It’s only recently that this inaccurate view is being corrected. You’re still labouring under the effects of propaganda that’s about 2,500 year old.
It is irrelevent whether the Celts left some sturdy buildings behind, the relative civilisation of a race cannot be judged by architecture alone, especialy if you’re talking about an often nomadic people. The Celts were skilled in various disciplines. They were artists, poets, metal workers, philosphers, theologians, vinters (they brought wine to Italy), maybe even astronomers and basic surgeons
Where the tribes did settle, it's been suggested that they had reaping machines for grain, started building roads before the Romans and even introduced Greece and Rome to the concept of soap.
Look into the subject.
Civilised barbarians, ummmmmmmmm, surely that’s an oxymoron?

I am not saying celtics were of no contribution, But at the time Of Alexander they were nothing more then and advanced Nomadic Tribe, They had no cities for ALexander to conquer they had no value for the Greek Empire.

someone needs to study history before they start making incorrect blanket statements about it
if it wasn't for the celts in all probability you wouldn't be here to make such statements
the Romans were gone by 400CE
after that the culture that followed in europe was predominantly celtic

WHAT?????????????????

Ever here of Franks, Normans, Goths,Huns , I dont think they were celtic the Celtics were dominated by those races. Roman empire existed into the midevel times it was called Byzantine empire.
I think your confusing them with the Boston Celtics now that was a dynasty.

lol those groups you just named got those names from their location
they were all made up of predominantly celtic peoples

youre kinda saying ever heard of liverpudlians and claiming they aren't english
when it comes down to races there is only one on this planet
maybe you should do some more reading
celtic culture was the foundation of everything that followed in europe

I believe he was already heading back towards Macedonia when he got sick and died. Assuming that doesn't happen, he finishes pacifying the former Persian empire, then heads west back to Macedonia for a homecoming. The rest of his life would probably involve taking Carthage, Italy, and the Eastern part of Spain, while frequently turning back to the East in order to put down rebellions.

Actually i think we all owe a great deal of thank you to Alexander the great and his armies aswell as the 300 Spartans, Because Persia was actually taken over many countries and making them slaves, if the 300 spartans and eventually alexander the great didnt fight and defeat persia, they would have gained entry into Europe and would have made everyone slaves. That would change the course of history to this day significantly.

Anyone agree?

It wouldn't be cool to be Italian, and kappa wouldn't exist.. It would have been a much nicer world.









O yay! I cant wait.

I think the sea battles the Athenians won were of (at least) equal importance, even if they weren't so glorious.
And there 700 Thespains helping out those 300 Spartans, remember.

--Jaylemurph

I'm pretty sure that's correct, he returned west to Persia after being wounded in India and only left a portion of the army to hold on to what he had there. Your prediction seems right on to me as well. Greek and Macedonian society was based heavily on warfare and conquest, so it seems likely that after returning to Macedonia Alexander would have been unable to sit still for long; Italy and Carthage were much closer targets. I think it's interesting to wonder what would have happened to Roman history instead of whether he could have pushed further east.

The world would be a cleaner more beautiful place.
Not to mention we would probably have more advanced technology than we do now.
The Greeks would then eventually take over the world, and create the ideal human civilization.
When the technological level is high enough we would have left earth to discover space, and colonize new planets.
Then breaking off into different civilizations and society's.

That's quite a pedestal you put the Greeks up on.

--Jaylemurph

... on thing is for sure, no need to inavade europe, well they had some wealth, like amber, fur and some nice jewelry, and sure some feudal system, institution like the "Ting", and women were nowhere in the known world respected as much as in the north, ...so much about cultural, but why invade a rain country full of forest with few people who were very independent, killed the cowards and thieves in the marsh, ate mushrooms before the battle or were this only the vikings (?), well and didn't make good slave back then ... not like nowadays...

well Rome did it for the gold
theres loads of it in western europe
he paid his legions with the gold hed stolen from the celts
he also funded his reign
thats pretty convincing as a reason
MONEY

So the Vikings were Celtic interesting...
All the Germanic tribes were Celtic hmmm
Slavs were celtic HMMMMM
Huns were celtic wow
The whole world is celtic right???
Adam was celtic eve was celtic moses was celtic.
Woow you really blew my mind.

Ya but your not, your a tool.

Hey O'Sullivan get of the bottle!!! Freaking Celtics advaced society give me a freaking break they cant keep their liquor.

ah so now you got busted your emoving the goal posts
heres what you said

the celts are the tribes who before the roman empire occupied the whole of western europe
all the tribes you mentioned originally are much later in history and are all celtic by descent
youre just adding slavs and vikings to make yourself look clever
trust me it isn't working



pretty wide term Celt
doesn't just apply to celtic rangers

The Goths came from around Norway-ish, as did the Vikings. The Huns came from Asia. The Slavs are probably from Eastern Europe. The Franks are a Germanic bunch that hovered around the Rhine and what's now France, Germany, Belgium etc.. the Normans are from the same kind of area but much later.

The Celts, who are not the same as any of them, were disparate tribes who occupied much of Western Europe and often the same space as a lot of the other 'barbarians'. They were linked by Celtic languages and similarities of culture, but not much else.

No-one really knows where they came from, but the current best guess is apparently the Iberian Peninsula or the Ukraine.

So there.

do you actually read previous posts

yes, why? what did i miss?

Normans were from Scandanavia originally by the way. Celts did not evolve into any thing they were swept aside by the Romans and by the groups I mentioned, so the celts were barbarians who contributed nothing.

Their lords were, yes.
contributed to what exactly?
and there's that barbarian thing again...

now heres the question
did all the Celts in these regions suddenly go jump off a cliff
or did they form the backbone of the bloodline of all the cultures that followed
including the Franks, Normans, Goths and ok maybe not the Huns,

I believe the inheritors of the western Roman empire (Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Franks, etc.) were more akin to the celts than the Romans. For example, the Salic Law under Clovis (correct me if I'm wrong) was written down like Roman tradition but was more similar to the tribal law described in Roman accounts of celts. And since the celtic inheritors of the western roman empire played a big role in shaping later European history, I'd say the Celts contributed a lot to European society.

Celts weren't "swept aside" by the Romans, as if they were exterminated or something. Boudica rebelled within Britain about 20 years after the Roman invasion/conquest. Celts, especially in Britain, incorporated Roman traditions into their art, government, etc., but also kept a lot of their own.

What happend was the same thing that happend to Aztecs a more powerful peoples subjugated them, intermarried and the such, the Celtics were a stepping stone for other groups. Empire you mean a collection of villages and loosely alighned at that.

Normans were vital in starting the European trade, in military organization. They conquered England controlled France, and actually have a name left after them Normandy.
Huns became the Hungarians,
Slavs became the Russians,Polish,Etc
Franks the French
All these groups are still existint today.
The Celts where exaclty are they?
Yes Barbarian in regards to Greece they were barbarian

Paris etc...

Huh?

Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Cornwall and Brittany mostly, though there are other pockets.
I'm Celtic.
Scotland, Wales and Ireland still have spoken Celtic languages, maybe Brittany. Wales has a Welsh TV channel.
There was obviously a lot of mingling of bloodlines, especially under Roman rule and from the various people who invaded the British Isles over time, but the Celts are still around.
And again, they're not the same as the Goths, Slavs or whatever, they'll certainly share some relatives in history, but they have distinct languages and cultures.
Honest.

I didnt want to offend you I am sorry if I did, I was just stating that at the time Of Alexander the celtics had no real value to conquer and had no real united empire as such. Yes celts have contributed in English society but not much in Europe overall.

Ironically, you hadn't offended me at all, up until you called it English society.
The British Celts (Scottish, Welsh, Irish etc) tend to respond very badly to being called English.
It's like calling the Canadians Americans or calling the Americans English I suppose.
(I'm actually not especially offended, but be warned in future, some people are rabid about it)

It's hard to judge Celtic contributions to Europe. Without the Celts to fight against, Rome might have been stronger and never fallen. Without Celtic mercenaries, Alexander might have been less successful (though I don't know to what extent he used them, just that he did). They would have affected the evolution of Europe in a thousand ways, as would any group that was so widespread.

Their influence is still there in the arts and there are still Celtic arts festivals, the Welsh Eisteddfod for instance is one of Europe's oldest and biggest cultural festivals.

I meant to say British society or United kingdom society?? I dont know some thing that happend on those Islands in the North Sea next to france. i thought you guys made up already?

we did make up, but some people have very long memories.
Bizarrely, going back to before they were born even.