Ab Urbe Condita Libri
In book 9 sections 17-19 Titus Livius suggests that even if Alexander the Great lived and attacked Rome, he would still be defeated. “‘What would have been the results for Rome if she had been engaged in war with Alexander?’ [3] The things which tell most in war are the numbers and courage of the troops, the ability of the commanders, and Fortune, who has such a potent influence over human affairs, especially those of war. [4] Any one who considers these factors either separately or in combination will easily see that as the Roman empire proved invincible against other kings and nations, so it would have proved invincible against Alexander.”-Titus Livius,Ab Urbe Condita Libri mini hist This was the first known case of alternate history and the first example of “my side always wins” trope in alternate history. Point of divergence Though not stated logically in this timeline we must assume Alexander survives past his mysterious death in 323 BC and at some point launches an attack against the Roman empire which was a lesser entity at this time and still loses. According to Livus Alexander was but a young man who had not experienced a change of luck and would fail at some point.
Alexander had a cutting edge technological and strategic advantage. Rome had similar technological and strategic advantages at various points in time.
The tip of the military spear is almost always overly considered. Wars are won by the shaft of the spear, and lost by those that do not understand this. Strategy is the utilization of available resources. Winners maximize their available resources and then use them well.
Militaries are like diseases that evolve with the immune systems of their potential hosts. The resources and strategies of a past era, are almost always ineffective against a future force, like how you may still get sick again from an illness you’ve had in the past, but your natural immunity makes the illness far less likely to kill you and far less severe.
Alexander was extremely mobile, with one of the first professional forces in an era of city states and a lack of central authority.
The Romans were a far more refined professional force, across eras when collective defense and cultural identities were stronger.
I would expect Hannibal’s campaign was far more successful than anything Alexander could muster in an alternate parallel.
In almost all instances, exceptionalism is one of the worst misconceptions in Western cultural propaganda used to prop up exploitation. The individual is a product of their environment.
Like people tend to obsess over the Pax Romana era, but it only existed on the back of the fall of the republican era and it was the previous momentum that made it. Rome slowly fell apart because of these exceptionally corrupt First Citizens. Exceptionalism is toxic mythology.
