My John Locke Essay Submission 2026

Connor Chung
1 hour ago
9 min read

What might the world look like if the Library of Alexandria hadn’t burned down? (History, Question 2)

The Library of Alexandria was unintentionally set on fire in 48 BCE during Julius Caesar’s involvement in the Alexandrian civil war (El-Abbadi, 2026). Trying to defend himself from attack, Caesar burned his own ships to create a distraction as flames spread throughout the city and began to engulf the library. Although historians debate the exact extent of destruction, estimates suggest that approximately a million scrolls containing invaluable information from Assyria, Greece, Persia, Egypt, India and many other civilisations were eventually lost (Canfora, 1989; Phillips, 2010). At its peak, the Library represented humanity’s ambition to collect all recorded knowledge into a single collection (Staikos, 2000; Wiegand and Davis, 2015). The works of scholars such as Hero of Alexandria, who invented early steam-powered devices nearly two millennium before they would be reengineered (Hero, 1851), and Eratosthenes, who precisely approximated the Earth’s circumference (Britannica Editors, 2026), were groundbreaking for their time, but are now mostly lost to history. The loss of the premier repository of the world's collected written knowledge was a devastating blow to the progress of humanity, forcing later generations to rebuild and rediscover much of what was lost., the destruction of the Library shows that scientific development can move backwards when knowledge gained over generations is lost instead of seeing history as a steady accumulation of progress. The destruction of such an enormous collection raises an intriguing historical question: how did the burning of the Library of Alexandria actually change history?

From a contingency perspective, the loss of this knowledge may have fundamentally altered human history. If the contents of the Library had survived, later civilisations may have built upon ancient scientific, mathematical and philosophical discoveries without having to rediscover them later. Hero of Alexandria’s aeolipile, described as a primitive steam engine, demonstrates that ancient societies had already mastered advanced technological concepts for their time (Hero, 1851). Hero himself is associated with Alexandria, so many of his scientific writings would have disappeared during the Library’s decline and destruction. If these works had been accessible and studied carefully, mechanised technology could have been invented and developed long before the Industrial Revolution in the eighteenth century. Similarly, the mathematical theories of Archimedes and the astronomical ideas of Aristarchus could have accelerated developments in gravity, engineering and planetary motion (Toomer, 2026; Evans, 2024). Some historians believe that parts of Renaissance science or even Newtonian physics could have appeared centuries earlier if certain texts had survived the fire (Ferguson, 1997). This interpretation reflects a contingency view of history, in which a single event can have far-reaching consequences. If intellectual breakthroughs build upon previous discoveries, then the destruction of a major repository of knowledge could have disrupted an entire chain of future innovations.

This argument becomes especially interesting when analysed alongside counterfactual history, which explores how events may have unfolded differently if key moments in history had changed (Ferguson, 1997). In this case, historians can imagine a world where the Library survived and continued accumulating knowledge for centuries. Instead of repeatedly rediscovering lost ideas, later civilisations may have inherited a much stronger scientific foundation from the ancient world, raising the possibility that the Renaissance, Scientific Revolution or even industrialisation itself could have commenced much earlier. Therefore, the Library symbolises not only lost information, but also lost historical possibilities (Stille, 2002). However, counterfactual history is not just valuable because it allows historians to predict alternative futures; its framework allows historians to assess how much influence particular events may have had on later developments. In this case, the Library is a useful lens for exploring the relationship between knowledge and historical change.

Another significant counterfactual event is the Islamic Golden Age, like the European Renaissance. Between the ninth and twelfth centuries A.D., Muslim scholars translated Greek scientific and philosophical works in centres of learning such as Baghdad (Saliba, 2007). These translations later influenced European thinkers and contributed greatly to the Renaissance (Saliba, 2007). If more of the Library of Alexandria’s texts had survived into this period, Islamic civilisations may have gained access to even more scientific and mathematical knowledge. This could have accelerated advances in astronomy, medicine, engineering and philosophy far more than what actually occurred. Thereby, Islamic powers could have gained even greater military, technological and economic advantages over medieval Europe. Conflicts such as the Crusades may have unfolded differently, reshaping the balance of power between the Christian and Muslim worlds (Ferguson, 1997). In this hypothetical timeline, the modern world itself may have looked very different politically, culturally and religiously. These possibilities show that the consequences of preserving or losing knowledge extend beyond science alone. Intellectual developments can influence military power, economic growth, religious authority and political legitimacy, so the Library’s survival may have produced ripple effects across all of society.

Despite these possibilities, many historians argue that broader historical forces would still have limited the Library’s overall impact. Under structuralist and materialist interpretations of history, political, economic and social conditions shape historical developments more than individual institutions alone (Carr, 1961; Burke, 2015). The history of the Library itself strongly reflects this point. Its decline began long before its final destruction, primarily due to instability within the Mediterranean world. Historical accounts describe the Library as a “casualty of war” during Caesar’s conflict in Alexandria (El-Abbadi, 2026), while Plutarch later wrote that “fire…spread from the dockyards and destroyed the Great Library” (Plutarch, c.100 CE). War, however, was not the only challenge. The ancient world experienced constant imperial transitions, invasions, economic crises and religious conflicts, all of which disrupted the preservation and transmission of knowledge. From a structuralist perspective, these broader forces are more important than any single institution, including the Library. Even if the Library had survived physically, unstable conditions may still have prevented its contents from influencing the wider world. This approach suggests that historical change is usually driven less by individual events and more by long-term social and political trends.

From a materialist perspective, knowledge alone does not automatically produce progress: scientific advancement also depends on infrastructure, economic demand and social conditions (Burke, 2015). Ancient scrolls were fragile, expensive and copied fully by hand, making them accessible only to small numbers of educated elites. Without technologies like Gutenberg’s printing press (only appearing over a millennium later), knowledge from Alexandria could never have spread widely among ordinary people (Eisenstein, 1979). Additionally, ancient economies depended on slave labour, meaning there was little incentive to develop labour-saving industrial machinery (Finley, 1999). Even though Hero’s steam-powered concepts existed, there was no industrial infrastructure or economic pressure to transform these ideas into an industrial revolution. In this sense, preserving knowledge would not necessarily have changed the overall direction of history. This challenges the assumption that ideas alone drive progress. Materialist historians argue that technological innovation emerges when knowledge, economic incentives and social needs align. Without those conditions, advanced discoveries would remain purely theoretical.

At the same time, the diffusionist interpretation challenges the idea that Alexandria alone controlled the survival of knowledge. Knowledge in the ancient world was not confined to one institution. Although Alexandria was, in its time, the greatest centre of learning, other important libraries and archives also existed, including the Library of Pergamum (World History Encyclopedia, 2025). In fact, the two libraries famously competed for the possession of rare texts. Some important works from Alexandria survived through copying and translation, including the Septuagint (the oldest Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible), which later became foundational to Christian theology (Britannica Editors, 2026). Furthermore, there were major archives of knowledge in Babylon and other nearby regions. As historian Robert Garland argues, intellectual traditions in the ancient world were spread across multiple civilisations and not concentrated just in Alexandria (Garland, 2008). This weakens the argument that the destruction of a single library could erase the entirety of human knowledge. Although Alexandria was very important, its existence was part of a wider network of intellectual exchange across the Mediterranean and Near East.

This suggests that even though the burning of Alexandria destroyed enormous amounts of information, it did not completely erase humanity’s intellectual traditions. Knowledge survived through copies, translations, oral traditions and scholars moving themselves across regions (Garland, 2008; Saliba, 2007). Many Greek philosophical and scientific works later reappeared through Islamic translation movements before returning to Europe during the Renaissance (Saliba, 2007). Thus, the destruction of the Library may have slowed the spread of ideas, but this did not completely destroy human civilisation’s ability to innovate and rediscover knowledge. In this sense, diffusionist interpretations regard knowledge as a resilient object: ideas may disappear in one place but survive elsewhere through copying, translation and cultural exchange.

These arguments ultimately suggest that the Library’s destruction changed the pace of history rather than its overall direction. Many broader historical developments would probably have occurred regardless of whether the Library survived. The decline of the Roman Empire, the rise of feudalism, and the increasing political influence of religion would still have shaped the medieval world (Carr, 1961). Scientific ideas that challenged accepted religious beliefs could be condemned as dangerous or heretical; this later happened with Galileo and Copernicus. Even if the Library had physically survived, its ideas may not have survived intellectually in societies unwilling to accept or spread certain forms of knowledge. Historical progress is shaped not only by preserving information, but also by whether societies are willing and able to apply it.

In conclusion, there is no simple answer to what would have happened if the Library of Alexandria had never burned down. On one hand, its destruction may have delayed scientific and technological progress by centuries and prevented humanity from building directly upon ancient discoveries. On the other hand, broader historical forces like war, religion, economics and political instability would still have driven the course of civilisation (Carr, 1961; Burke, 2015). Therefore, the key takeaway is that this debate surrounding the Library is not just about an alternative timeline, but more about understanding how history itself operates. Whether one adopts a contingency, structuralist, materialist or diffusionist perspective, the destruction of Alexandria reveals the very complex relationships between ideas, institutions and historical change. Ultimately, the significance of the Library is not just the knowledge itself that was lost but what this symbolizes (Stille, 2002). The burning of Alexandria shows us how fragile human knowledge can be and the millions of possibilities that disappear when information is destroyed. While the event may not have completely changed history's direction, it almost certainly changed its pace, leaving us to wonder what futures and discoveries were lost to the flames.

Bibliography

Britannica Editors (2026) ‘Eratosthenes’. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Eratosthenes (Accessed: 1 June 2026).

Britannica Editors (2026) ‘Septuagint’. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Septuagint (Accessed: 1 June 2026).

Burke, P. (2015) What is Cultural History? 2nd edn. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Canfora, L. (1989) The Vanished Library: A Wonder of the Ancient World. Translated by M. Ryle. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Carr, E.H. (1961) What Is History? London: Macmillan.

Eisenstein, E.L. (1979) The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

El-Abbadi, M. (1992) Life and Fate of the Ancient Library of Alexandria. 2nd revised edn. Paris: UNESCO.

El-Abbadi, M. (2026) ‘Library of Alexandria’. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Library-of-Alexandria (Accessed: 1 June 2026).

Evans, J. (2024) ‘Aristarchus of Samos’. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aristarchus-of-Samos (Accessed: 1 June 2026).

Ferguson, N. (ed.) (1997) Virtual History: Alternatives and Counterfactuals. London: Picador.

Finley, M.I. (1999) The Ancient Economy. Updated edn. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Garland, R. (2008) Ancient Greece: Everyday Life in the Birthplace of Western Civilization. New York: Sterling.

Hero of Alexandria (1851) The Pneumatics of Hero of Alexandria. Translated by B. Woodcroft. London: Taylor Walton and Maberly.

New World Encyclopedia (2024) ‘Library of Alexandria’. Available at: https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Library_of_Alexandria (Accessed: 1 June 2026).

Phillips, H. (2010) ‘The Great Library of Alexandria?’, Library Philosophy and Practice. University of Nebraska–Lincoln.

Plutarch (c.100 CE) Life of Caesar, in Parallel Lives.

Prince, S.H. (2010) ‘Diogenes the Cynic’, in Gagarin, M. and Fantham, E. (eds.) The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Saliba, G. (2007) Islamic Science and the Making of the European Renaissance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Staikos, K.S. (2000) The Great Libraries: From Antiquity to the Renaissance. New Castle, DE: Oak Knoll Press and The British Library.

Stille, A. (2002) ‘The Return of the Vanished Library’, in The Future of the Past. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, pp. 246–273.

The Information Architects of Encyclopaedia Britannica (2026) ‘Myth of the Cave’. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/myth-of-the-cave (Accessed: 1 June 2026).

Toomer, G.J. (2026) ‘Archimedes’. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Archimedes (Accessed: 1 June 2026).

Wiegand, W.A. and Davis, D.G. Jr. (2015) Encyclopedia of Library History. New York: Routledge.

World History Encyclopedia (2025) ‘Library of Pergamon’. Available at: https://www.worldhistory.org/Library_of_Pergamon/ (Accessed: 1 June 2026).