331 BC: Alexander Stops

[GBW]

In 331 BC, Alexander had defeated Darius at the Battle of Issus, captured Tyre after a long siege and marched into Egypt where he was crowned Pharoah. He left Egypt and was marching into Mesopotamia when Darius sent ten ambassadors to him with a third offer of peace:
Formerly he designated the river Halys, the boundary of Lydia, as the limit of your rule, but he now offers everything between the Hellespont and the Euphrates as dowry for the daughter that he gives you in marriage. Keep in your possession his Ochus as guarantee of his word regarding the peace-terms, but return his mother and the two unmarried daughters--in return for the three he requests that you accept 30,000 talents of gold.
Alexander dismissed the ambassadors and asked his senior officers what they thought. Parmenion urged him to accept the offer, and thereby gain both a large sum of money and a large amount of land without further fighting. Alexander was displeased with Parmenion's words, and said when he finished "Yes, I too would prefer money to military glory if I were Parmenion. As it is, I am Alexander. I am not worried about lack of money and I am aware that I am not a merchant but a king. I have nothing to sell and I certainly refuse to peddle my fortune. If we do decide the prisoners should be returned, we shall do the honorable thing and make a gift of them instead of charging a price."

What if Parmenion had phrased his reasoning differently or some other factor came into play? What if Alexander accepted Darius' final offer of peace? Persia would likely be a while recovering from the war and I somehow doubt Darius would rule Persia much longer after such a defeat. Alexander, meanwhile, could organize his new lands however he wants and then concentrate on expansion elsewhere, such as Carthage or Italy.

Thoughts?

[Midgard]

In 331 BC, Alexander had defeated Darius at the Battle of Issus, captured Tyre after a long siege and marched into Egypt where he was crowned Pharoah. He left Egypt and was marching into Mesopotamia when Darius sent ten ambassadors to him with a third offer of peace:

Alexander dismissed the ambassadors and asked his senior officers what they thought. Parmenion urged him to accept the offer, and thereby gain both a large sum of money and a large amount of land without further fighting. Alexander was displeased with Parmenion's words, and said when he finished "Yes, I too would prefer money to military glory if I were Parmenion. As it is, I am Alexander. I am not worried about lack of money and I am aware that I am not a merchant but a king. I have nothing to sell and I certainly refuse to peddle my fortune. If we do decide the prisoners should be returned, we shall do the honorable thing and make a gift of them instead of charging a price."

What if Parmenion had phrased his reasoning differently or some other factor came into play? What if Alexander accepted Darius' final offer of peace? Persia would likely be a while recovering from the war and I somehow doubt Darius would rule Persia much longer after such a defeat. Alexander, meanwhile, could organize his new lands however he wants and then concentrate on expansion elsewhere, such as Carthage or Italy.

Thoughts?

An interesting possibility could be if Darius loses his throne after a few years, but keeps his life... then flees to Alexander, as his son-in-law, to plea for his help in Darius' restoration to the Persian throne. Alexander is then just as successful at subduing the opposition as in OTL, and reinstates Darius - then, after the latter's death (which could come rather soon) is universally recognized as the next Persian king, except that due to a few years' reprieve he now ends up living much longer, not being poisoned as in OTL - plus his rule is viewed with a greater degree of legitimacy. Could this lead to longer-lasting Alexander's empire?

[F Lerner]

It's very interesting.

If Alexander had accepted this deal and had ended the war at this point, he also would not have undertaken the india campaign, gotten sick and become weakened, a factor which certainly must have contributed to his death.

A shift in his attention to the west would probably have come directly at the expense of the Carthaginians. The Greeks and the Phoenicians were at odds with each other, anyway.
Would the Greeks of Magna Grecia have welcomed his westward movements, or would they have resisted? What would Rome have become in such a scenario? Rome and Carthage might have allied with each other? Or would Rome never have grown so corrupted as they did after winning the Punic wars?

Very interesting.

[Cockroach]

From http://70.1911encyclopedia.org/A/AL/ALEXANDER_I_OF_EPIRUS_.htm
ALEXANDER I., king of Epirus about 342 B.C., brother of Olympias the mother of Alexander the Great, and son-in-law of Philip of Macedon, whose daughter Cleopatra he married (336). In 332 he crossed over to Italy to assist the Tarentines against the Lucanians, Bruttians and Samnites. He gained considerable successes and made an arrangement with the Romans for a joint attack upon the Samnites ; but the Taren-tines, suspecting him of the design of founding an independent kingdom, turned against him. Although the advantage at first rested with Alexander, he gradually lost it, and his supporters dwindled away. In 330 (or earlier) he was defeated at Pandosia and slain by a Lucanian emigrant.
Seems Alexander III of Macedon would already have something to deal with in Italy, namely getting revenge for the death of his Uncle/Brother-in-law.
And no doubt after getting his revenge upon the Tarentines I dare say he will be more than prepeared to lay waste to anything, Roman, Eutruscan or Samnite that happens to have the miss-fortune of being in his path.

[Duncan]

Seems Alexander III of Macedon would already have something to deal with in Italy, namely getting revenge for the death of his Uncle/Brother-in-law. And no doubt after getting his revenge upon the Tarentines I dare say he will be more than prepeared to lay waste to anything, Roman, Etruscan or Samnite that happens to have the misfortune of being in his path.
The Tarantines, who fell out with Alexander of Epeiros but didn't actually fight him, are going to fawn over any big army that crosses the sea. Alexander won't have any need to punish them, though no doubt their rivals at Thourii (which stayed loyal to Alex of E and was the centre of his rump Italiote alliance) will be Big Alex's favourites.

The Lucanians and their Samnite allies will be crushed in fairly short order. The obvious Roman course, since they are already rivals of the Samnites, is to ally with Alexander. (The first Roman-Samnite War was in the 340s; the second broke out in 327, so might have already started, depending exactly when Alex goes west. Even if he crosses in 329 or 328, no doubt the Romans will sieze the opportunity of having their major enemy distracted and strike sooner.)

[Anthony Appleyard]

The big POD with Alexander is: what if he lived to old age? His first son by Roxana would have grown up and become king, and also would have inherited the Achaemenid Persian crown via Roxana, and the Achaemenid line continues. The Persian army gets Macedonian trainers and its infantry becomes much more effective. The administration gets Persianized: somewhat like when Poland and Lithuania joined, or Scotland and England joined, due to the same man inheriting both thrones.