Aborting the Hellenistic Era: Alexander dies in 335BC

The year is 335BC. Alexander of Macedon, a young and ambitious prince, eager to build on his father's legacy has fought off all internal claimants to the Macedonian throne, crushed the Illyrians and Thracians and finally brought the Greek city states to heel through his destruction of Thebes.

He heads North to his capital at Pella, to spend the winter preparing for his long-awaited invasion of Asia. However, while out hunting his horse, Bucephalas, puts a foot into a rabbit hole, throwing the King of Madecon from the saddle. His neck breaks as he hits the ground, killing him instantly.

What now?
 
Well Makedon is pretty fucked. I can see over the next 20 years Macedon returning to its pre-Philip state of near collapse.

I do think, however, that there is going to still be a Greek effort on Ionia at the very least at some point. A reconquest of Ionia had been in the air ever since the Spartans gave it up, and the proto-Philip, Jason of Pherai, went on record openly musing about the idea of using it to unite the Greeks, as Philip and Alexander would do.So I think any strongman that arises in Greece (if one does) is going to follow that familiar template.

Otherwise, with Thebes destroyed, Sparta a mere shell of its former self, and Alexander The Molossian set to die in southern Italy there's only one power strong enough to fill the vacuum: Athens. Perhaps also some king of Arkadian or Achaian League in the Peloponnese. You also have to deal with the increased raids by the Celts up in the north; with Macedon weakened much earlier, the raids will intensify much earlier. The major reason it took until the 280s was because Macedon was a relatively strong and powerful state between the Celts arrival and then. Not so here.
 
Yes this is pretty much what I figured. Presumably Athens tries to turn the League of Corinth into a second Delian League

I agree that the idea of a crusade of sorts against Persia is part of the zeitgeist.

I'm wondering if an Athenian hegemony can make use.of the Macedonian nobles effectively...there's clearly a lot of energy there.

The celts are an interesting factor and one which I hadn't considered.

However without Alexander I doubt there's going to be the sort of crushing collapse of the Persian Empire as per otl. It'll be interesting to see what Greek mercenary warlords get up to- perhaps the ATLs hellenisation will still occur but rather than in one fell swoop, as a function of Greek warlords chipping away at Persia.
 
Last edited:
I'm not convinced that Macedon is completely screwed.

It still has the best military force in Greece (and probably the Western Med) and it has two reasonably competent Generals in Antipater and Parmenion in charge of large army detatchments. There is an obvious candidate for the position of King in Phillip III and his mental deficiencies make it easier for one or the other of the generals to be the power behind the throne.

There might be a civil war between Parmenion and Antipater but I'm backing Antpater to come out on top (the Army liked to support the royal family even if he was clearly unsuitable).

I don't see an invasion of Persia (possible Ionia) but I could imagine Macedon being strong enough to maintain a hold on the Greeks for a generation or two.

The dynasty would probably be continued via a bastard of the future wife of Phillip III, possibly Phila, Antpater's daughter.
 
I'm not convinced that Macedon is completely screwed.

It still has the best military force in Greece (and probably the Western Med) and it has two reasonably competent Generals in Antipater and Parmenion in charge of large army detatchments. There is an obvious candidate for the position of King in Phillip III and his mental deficiencies make it easier for one or the other of the generals to be the power behind the throne.

There might be a civil war between Parmenion and Antipater but I'm backing Antpater to come out on top (the Army liked to support the royal family even if he was clearly unsuitable).

I don't see an invasion of Persia (possible Ionia) but I could imagine Macedon being strong enough to maintain a hold on the Greeks for a generation or two.

The dynasty would probably be continued via a bastard of the future wife of Phillip III, possibly Phila, Antpater's daughter.

But even so wouldn't Alexander's death spark uprisings all over the Macedonian hegemony? Especially with Macedon tied down in a civil war...

I'm not sure it would be that easy to reassert hegemony- although, of course one should never underestimate the potential of the Greeks to start infighting, leaving Macedon free to reassert itself.

I'm also wondering what happens in the. Persian empire which IIRC wasn't that stable by this point.
 
It would depend largely on how unified the Macedonian nobles, Antipater and Parmenion became,

(Has Alexander already ordered Attalus killed in your view of this timeline? because if not as one of Philip's best friends he'd certainly get involved,he didn't want Alexander to have the throne in the first place due to the fact he was only half macedonian)

But Parmenion (and Attalus? ^) is in Asia minor with the vanguard force of 10,000 in 335BC so he wouldn't have the immediate influence or even hear about Alexander's death for the first few days/weeks

Antipater would assume control of Macedonia as either ruler or regent for Alexander's half-brother arrihedus(don't know the spelling? )

Athens goes fully independent not much can be done, Thebes has been destroyed already by Alexander. Thessaly stays loyal to the Macedonians,they've become too integrated in the Macedonian military just to up and leave imo.
Illyria revolts and Antipater puts them down in a crushing blow, the Macedonian Army still being supreme but meanwhile Athens has been strengthening it's holdings to the south

Massive power split between Athens-Macedonia with other states aligning one way or another. Delian league reformed?

Parmenion returns/is recalled with his force, the attempt to invade Persia is abandoned.

Persia uses gold to encourage a similar version of events to the Peloponnesian war, only this time it's Athens vs. Macedonia instead of Athens vs. Sparta as in 430's BC
but the Persia is already approaching collapse so who knows if they'd actually get involved in greek politics or would be too busy trying to hold the empire together without an external threat?

Depending again on the relationship between Antipater and Parmenion(if they're rivals civil war would have brought Macedon down already and Athens rules Greece)
but if they're unified the Macedonian throne isn't still isn't stable, nor are the Greek states pacified enough to try and invade Persia again. Macedonia settles for Hegemony of Greece.

What happens next depends on who rules once the "king" dies?
Both Antipater and Parmenion have sons so do we see a late civil war that would ultimately lead Athens to rise once again or is some deal made between the two of them?
 
The year is 335BC. Alexander of Macedon, a young and ambitious prince, eager to build on his father's legacy has fought off all internal claimants to the Macedonian throne, crushed the Illyrians and Thracians and finally brought the Greek city states to heel through his destruction of Thebes.

He heads North to his capital at Pella, to spend the winter preparing for his long-awaited invasion of Asia. However, while out hunting his horse, Bucephalas, puts a foot into a rabbit hole, throwing the King of Madecon from the saddle. His neck breaks as he hits the ground, killing him instantly.

What now?
Well, of course it is impossible to be sure, but we may make an educated guess.

First, Macedon vs (Balkan) Greece:
With all due respect to the Hellenes these guy proved (in OTL) that they are unable to unite themselves. That is true before Alexander the Great and after. As for the Macedonians (in OTL) they proved to be able to stay united. So if I were forced to bet, I would bet on Macedon - they have better chances to unite under one leader, not necessarily under the previous dynasty. And if/when they are united they would look at (Balkan) Greece kind of thoughtfully.

Would Macedon conquer Greece again?
I take it for granted that when Alexander is dead Greece is in revolt and mostly independent. (I am not sure about Phessalia though, it's 50-50 chances.) But when/if Macedon is united again it has the best army in the Western Mediterranean and the obvious aim is to conquer Greece again.
Here everything depends on Persia. And I bet on Persian policy not to repeat the Macedonian conquest of Greece as the next step would be the invasion into the Achaemenid realm.
I have to admit that I consider Darius III to be greatly underappreciated, that was a great leader. He just got to power when it was too late to do anything about Greece and Macedon in OTL. And I have all the grounds to presume that he won't let Greece to be conquered by Macedon again when he has things under control now in this ATL. So ships full with Persian gold will go to Greece to help it fight against Macedon.
The Celts appearing in the North of Macedon will save some money for shahinshah.
 
Well, of course it is impossible to be sure, but we may make an educated guess.

First, Macedon vs (Balkan) Greece:
With all due respect to the Hellenes these guy proved (in OTL) that they are unable to unite themselves. That is true before Alexander the Great and after. As for the Macedonians (in OTL) they proved to be able to stay united. So if I were forced to bet, I would bet on Macedon - they have better chances to unite under one leader, not necessarily under the previous dynasty. And if/when they are united they would look at (Balkan) Greece kind of thoughtfully.

Would Macedon conquer Greece again?
I take it for granted that when Alexander is dead Greece is in revolt and mostly independent. (I am not sure about Phessalia though, it's 50-50 chances.) But when/if Macedon is united again it has the best army in the Western Mediterranean and the obvious aim is to conquer Greece again.
Here everything depends on Persia. And I bet on Persian policy not to repeat the Macedonian conquest of Greece as the next step would be the invasion into the Achaemenid realm.
I have to admit that I consider Darius III to be greatly underappreciated, that was a great leader. He just got to power when it was too late to do anything about Greece and Macedon in OTL. And I have all the grounds to presume that he won't let Greece to be conquered by Macedon again when he has things under control now in this ATL. So ships full with Persian gold will go to Greece to help it fight against Macedon.
The Celts appearing in the North of Macedon will save some money for shahinshah.

Very interesting points, Russian- thanks for your notes on Darius. So perhaps the Persian Empire, without the unique stress of Alexander's invasion, wasn't purely ripe to fall?

I wonder what the culture of the Middle East would look like- without the overarching Hellenism, do we see a much more "Persianised" Middle East?
 
But even so wouldn't Alexander's death spark uprisings all over the Macedonian hegemony? Especially with Macedon tied down in a civil war...

I'm not sure it would be that easy to reassert hegemony- although, of course one should never underestimate the potential of the Greeks to start infighting, leaving Macedon free to reassert itself.

I'm also wondering what happens in the. Persian empire which IIRC wasn't that stable by this point.
To add to this, Antipater had an old style way of dealing with revolts that Alexander and Philip had moved past. Namely, that was quickly finding them and engaging in pitched battle. Which was a very risky proposition, and something which Philip and Alexander tried to avoid with the Greeks, preferring maneuvering their way into a superior position and only doing battle when absolutely necessary (see: Chaeronea, which was an incredibly close run thing) or when they have an overwhelming advantage.

I don't see why Antipater would fare much better than he did in the Lamian War. The Thessalians deserted him then, and they'll desert him now. Athens and, more importantly, Sparta, is in much better shape. The Persians are also going to be funneling boatloads of gold into Athenian and Spartan coffers and Antipater won't have an army and navy from Asia to come and save him. I honestly see this ending badly for him-quickly and hastily engaging in battle, suffering a setback, and forced into an impossible situation to extradite himself from. The Athenian led coalition backs a pretender to the throne (or regency), Antipater's overthrown, and Macedon is left weakened, their ruler returning to the pre-Philip ritual of having to seek foreign support to gain the throne, and thus not having much domestic support-rinse and repeat civil war and external invasion.
 
Interestingly enough...if Greece is in this much disarray, what might be the chances of the invading Celts actually conquering it and establishing Helleno-Celtic states?
 
To add to this, Antipater had an old style way of dealing with revolts that Alexander and Philip had moved past. Namely, that was quickly finding them and engaging in pitched battle. Which was a very risky proposition, and something which Philip and Alexander tried to avoid with the Greeks, preferring maneuvering their way into a superior position and only doing battle when absolutely necessary (see: Chaeronea, which was an incredibly close run thing) or when they have an overwhelming advantage.

I don't see why Antipater would fare much better than he did in the Lamian War. The Thessalians deserted him then, and they'll desert him now. Athens and, more importantly, Sparta, is in much better shape. The Persians are also going to be funneling boatloads of gold into Athenian and Spartan coffers and Antipater won't have an army and navy from Asia to come and save him. I honestly see this ending badly for him-quickly and hastily engaging in battle, suffering a setback, and forced into an impossible situation to extradite himself from. The Athenian led coalition backs a pretender to the throne (or regency), Antipater's overthrown, and Macedon is left weakened, their ruler returning to the pre-Philip ritual of having to seek foreign support to gain the throne, and thus not having much domestic support-rinse and repeat civil war and external invasion.

He would not be outnumbered here - it's unlikely Sparta and Athens would combine and Sparta was very much a spent force anyway, dependent on Persian gold. Remember that the Lamian war was also funded with liberal use of Persian gold - albeit via a corrupt Alexandrian official. I doubt that the Persian would see as much as 5000 talents as being a "good investment" hence the forces raised so soon after Chaeronea are likely to be smaller to.

I agree the critical question is how quickly the sucession can be finalised in Macedon. However Antipater probably is in pole position to dictate terms to the others - especially as Attalus is dead and Parmenion's influence weakened by allowing this to happen and also being defeated by Memnon.

I'm not sure the Celts can take advantage so soon - they are still in Illyria at this time. They may accelerate their arrival but it's still decades away.
 
However Antipater probably is in pole position to dictate terms to the others - especially as Attalus is dead and Parmenion's influence weakened by allowing this to happen and also being defeated by Memnon.

Defeated is a bit strong, he was sent to Persia with essentially an expeditionary force to capture a bridgehead for Phillip to lead his main army across, the delay in that caused by Phillips death meant he lost the support of the Greek cities in Asia minor and was left with an impossible game of cat and mouse with a much smaller force to play against Memmons larger force.
In OTL it's a miracle Phillip's death didn't force him to withdraw and he managed to keep his force alive long enough for Alexander to join him. I doubt Memmon would have fared much better if the situation was reversed.

But anyways that's a different debate, the point being Parmenion is still just across the Hellespont with a considerable force, the only reason his influenced is weakened is he's in Asia Minor and so too far away, nothing to do really with any military defeats or failures but presumably upon hearing the news he would start marching home,
Now an army fresh from conflict led by one of Philip's favourite generals is going to have considerable influence if the situation is unstable. Hence my earlier point that it really depends on whether Antipater and Parmenion can unify or if they become rivals. After all look at the situation when Philip came to the throne, he faced numerous pretenders but managed to negotiate and defeat them.I can't see Antipater being successful or even trying to emulate Philip's successes when it's a pretender backed by a Macedonian force led by Parmenion and he's got issues from the other Greek states occurring at the same time. If the two are at odds Macedonia will not hold on to any control.
 
Defeated is a bit strong, he was sent to Persia with essentially an expeditionary force to capture a bridgehead for Phillip to lead his main army across, the delay in that caused by Phillips death meant he lost the support of the Greek cities in Asia minor and was left with an impossible game of cat and mouse with a much smaller force to play against Memmons larger force.
In OTL it's a miracle Phillip's death didn't force him to withdraw and he managed to keep his force alive long enough for Alexander to join him. I doubt Memmon would have fared much better if the situation was reversed.

But anyways that's a different debate, the point being Parmenion is still just across the Hellespont with a considerable force, the only reason his influenced is weakened is he's in Asia Minor and so too far away, nothing to do really with any military defeats or failures but presumably upon hearing the news he would start marching home,
Now an army fresh from conflict led by one of Philip's favourite generals is going to have considerable influence if the situation is unstable. Hence my earlier point that it really depends on whether Antipater and Parmenion can unify or if they become rivals. After all look at the situation when Philip came to the throne, he faced numerous pretenders but a pretender backed by a Macedonian force led by Parmenion might be too much for Antipater to deal with.

Okay - if not defeated then not a victorious hero ;)

Antipater will have control over the main force (2-3x the size of Parmenion's). I agree how their relationship plays out will be crucial for Macedon.

As far as I have read neither Antipater nor Parmenion would be likely to seek the throne for themselves. Both would seek advantage for their children though Antipater's daughters are better placed than Parmenion's recently widowed daughter who was married to Attalus.

Civil war is possible although I would not rate it as probable.
 
Okay - if not defeated then not a victorious hero ;)

Antipater will have control over the main force (2-3x the size of Parmenion's). I agree how their relationship plays out will be crucial for Macedon.

As far as I have read neither Antipater nor Parmenion would be likely to seek the throne for themselves. Both would seek advantage for their children though Antipater's daughters are better placed than Parmenion's recently widowed daughter who was married to Attalus.

Civil war is possible although I would not rate it as probable.

I agree neither would be after the throne directly, but I think they'd both be seeking control over the throne indirectly.

Parmenion's son Philotas as one of Alexander's inner companions may have more importance than their respective daughters or Antipater's 5 year old son Cassander?
and with the support of his father could have contended the influence Antipater had possibly?
Although I can't recall where Philotas was based in 335BC I think it was in Greece with Alexander, But he wasn't killed until much later in OTL and at various points is known to have lusted for power himself so would he make some sort of move to reduce antipaters control whilst awaiting his father's return?
 
I agree neither would be after the throne directly, but I think they'd both be seeking control over the throne indirectly.

Parmenion's son Philotas as one of Alexander's inner companions may have more importance than their respective daughters or Antipater's 5 year old son Cassander?
and with the support of his father could have contended the influence Antipater had possibly?
Although I can't recall where Philotas was based in 335BC I think it was in Greece with Alexander, But he wasn't killed until much later in OTL and at various points is known to have lusted for power himself so would he make some sort of move to reduce antipaters control whilst awaiting his father's return?

The problem with Philotas (who would likely be a very good candidate to maintain Macedonian power projection) is that he would have to displace Phillip III Arrhidaeus first. Which is why I think marrying either Parmenion's recently widowed daughter or one of Antipaters daughters to Arrhenius is the more likely outcome to cement control of the dynasty.

After all that is what Cynane daughter of Phillip II tried to do by marrying her daughter Euridyce to Arrhidaeus.

Remember that without the Asian conquests, all of the Macedonian lands in 335 BCE were ruled by the King of Macedon directly. There wasn't this artificial split between the King of Macedon and the King of Kings that the Diadochii tried to establish.
 
He would not be outnumbered here - it's unlikely Sparta and Athens would combine and Sparta was very much a spent force anyway, dependent on Persian gold. Remember that the Lamian war was also funded with liberal use of Persian gold - albeit via a corrupt Alexandrian official. I doubt that the Persian would see as much as 5000 talents as being a "good investment" hence the forces raised so soon after Chaeronea are likely to be smaller to.

I agree the critical question is how quickly the sucession can be finalised in Macedon. However Antipater probably is in pole position to dictate terms to the others - especially as Attalus is dead and Parmenion's influence weakened by allowing this to happen and also being defeated by Memnon.

I'm not sure the Celts can take advantage so soon - they are still in Illyria at this time. They may accelerate their arrival but it's still decades away.
Antipater doesn't have much numerical superiority if he's also fighting a civil war with Parmenion. I also disagree that the Persians would be funneling less gold-they dumped over a lot of gold to Sparta during the war, and that was while embroiled in a war themselves. There's also nothing stopping Parmenion, if he gets into a civil war with Antipater, eliciting Athenian support.

Then you have to consider that there's more mercenaries available than OTL, since Alexander hasn't hired and coopted most of them into his army. Numbers wise, you would probably see something closer to Chaeronea. And since Antipater isn't Philip or Alexander, I think it will be a much closer run thing than OTL. Long term, I can't really see Macedon maintaining control over Greece; one thing that is constant in Greece's history to this point is hegemony is only temporary and the balance of power constantly shifts.
 
Probably no rabbits in that part of Europe during that period. Apparently their native range was only in Iberia and perhaps part of southern Gaul, from which it was the Romans who spread them...

Fair enough. Bucephalas slips on loose gravel.
 
Long term, I can't really see Macedon maintaining control over Greece; one thing that is constant in Greece's history to this point is hegemony is only temporary and the balance of power constantly shifts.

I realise no one's posted in this for a while,so sorry if this is breaking any rule

but I was re-reading the point you made here and I read this point through and I'm not so convinced.

Alexander has destroyed Thebes, Sparta is a shadow of it's former self long before Alexander come to the throne,
the only power left is Athens to challenge Macedonian hegemony.
and considering Thebes and Athens combined couldn't defeat phillip, I'm not convinced Athens could wipe out the Hegemony,

Yes probably some sort of smaller Delian league would form in the south, and the Athenian colonies etc. would revert to type,
but I think if Antipater and Parmenion were onside and united they'd be able to hold control of most of the north and East of Greece, provided Thessaly didn't side with Athens. As the balance of power I think would be pretty equal in a land war

If they sorted out that balance fast enough there's no reason the northern raids by Celts you mentioned in an earlier point would be hugely weakening to Macedon, nor would they have issue controlling their territory as long as they arranged who would have control(Philotas marrying into Antipater's family perhaps? or keeping with arrihedus as king in name only? )

Leaving Macedonia as the slightly stronger power, and possibly the league formed by Philip shifting into a dodgy alliance between the two powers,
Give it time and some master diplomacy who know's perhaps a jointly commanded greek army attempts to free asia minor from Persia(yes this is a bit far-fetched perhaps)
 
Top