DBWI: Alexander conquered Persia, not Philip

Philip II of Macedon suffered from a near-death incident in 336BCE. OTL he survived and led the invasion of Persia, establishing the boundary of the Hellenic World along the Tigris River.

It was widely believed that Alexander had a desire to push east, but OTL he expended his expansionist urgings via the conquest of the rest of what would become the western world: Kush, Punt, Arabia, Yemen, Illyria, Dacia, Cyrenaica, Magna Graecia, Etruscia, Carthage, Numidia, Mauritania, and Spania.

Philipolis literally became the center of half the world.


But what if Philip had died and Alexander had conquered Persia instead of everything else? Might he have continued trekking east and taken India?

upload_2019-5-14_13-5-47.png
 
I mean, Alexander eventually did push those borders farther to the East, admittedly, a less impressive feat since Persia had by this time fallen into a dozen different warring factions. Never reached India though, given he had to head back West to deal with the Gauls invading Italia. God did he make them pay for making him have to stop short of the Indus.

That said, to deal with the POD, having the early core form around the Silk Road and old Persia, instead of the Mediterranean and Red Seas would have resulted in a different Macedonian Empire. One likely much more Persian in nature than Greek.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
I mean, Alexander eventually did push those borders farther to the East, admittedly, a less impressive feat since Persia had by this time fallen into a dozen different warring factions. Never reached India though, given he had to head back West to deal with the Gauls invading Italia. God did he make them pay for making him have to stop short of the Indus.

Let's be real here: Alexander was never in sight of the Indos. After he succeeded his old man, the Akhaimenids were overthrown for losing all that land, and some factions in the succession struggle were planning renewed war. Alexander led has army into the Persian heartland, struck a deal with the most powerful Parthian war-host, and cleverly re-directed their efforts towards the Indos. (After all, the already-declining Nanda empire was in turmoil after Chandragupta's attempted coup.)

Persia was left as a collection of more-or-less unthreatening states, and Alexander went back home before his very presence could unite them against him.

Of course, then he led that campaign against the Gauls, which was a whole big waste of resources and got him nothing he really wanted to keep. He's lucky his son was a good administrator, or the Empire would have fallen mere decades after Philippos forged it together. Alexander's son, Argaios, wisely withdrew from most of Spania and from Gaul proper. would've been an endless quagmire to stay there.


...my point is: holding all of Persia would've been much the same. You either "go native" and lose greece proper after some time, or you try to impose Greek rule and you get overthrown before long. I do agree with you, then, that you'd get a "Macedonian" Empire that would be Persian... because it would probably be a Persian Empire with a Macedonian dynasty, which no longer even includes Macedon itself! My bet is that Alexander would just head East, establish his capital in Persepolis, and rule from there.


Might he have continued trekking east and taken India?

I really doubt it. That's just a story based on myth-making in OTL. as I said: alexander only ever sent the Parthians off towards the Indos in a clever geo-political move that caused the Indo-Parthian Contention. That kept all parties occupied, and that allowed Argaios to consolidate the Macedonian Empire in the decades afterward. If Alexander had taken Persia completely, that would have surely satisfied him? Persepolis would be he biggest prize of all. What do you imagine him doing? Burn it all down and keep marching East? "Wow, nice golden throne, but no thanks, I prefer ten more years of campaigning"? Don't make me laugh. Nobody would be that stupid.

The way I see it, if Philippos dies, Alexander carries out the big plan, but doesn't make a deal. He conquers all of Persia (or dies trying, but let's assume he makes it), and then he has to actually pacify it. That would surely take a while, right? He'll never have a chance to even consider going further east. At most, he'll see Chandragupta's coup (if it happens here) as a cool opportunity to keep the enemy busy. Maybe he'll fund Chandragupta, so that the coup doesn't fail in this ATL, and he'll have a loyal vassal/friend beyond the Indos. t's not like Chandragupta could be a threat anyway. Look at what happened to the Nanda Empire after he was executed in OTL: it just fell apart. No danger there at all.
 
Skallagrim is correct on all fronts, but I think he forgets one thing. Gaulencia. OTL, Alexander’s withdraw caused a few tribes, I forget which, to modernise to mostly preserve their way of life and form more solidified geopolitical moves. They eventually went on to conquer all of Gaul not under Macedon, Britannia, western Germanía, non Macedonian Spana, hades, even Irlandia eventually became a colony for a few decades and some legends claim Islandia saw trade posts... for some reason. Gaulencia was the real root of western culture. If Alexander doesn’t put the pressure cooker on and create the drive for empire, what happens to western Europa?
 
Let's be real here: Alexander was never in sight of the Indos. After he succeeded his old man, the Akhaimenids were overthrown for losing all that land, and some factions in the succession struggle were planning renewed war. Alexander led has army into the Persian heartland, struck a deal with the most powerful Parthian war-host, and cleverly re-directed their efforts towards the Indos. (After all, the already-declining Nanda empire was in turmoil after Chandragupta's attempted coup.)

Persia was left as a collection of more-or-less unthreatening states, and Alexander went back home before his very presence could unite them against him.

Of course, then he led that campaign against the Gauls, which was a whole big waste of resources and got him nothing he really wanted to keep. He's lucky his son was a good administrator, or the Empire would have fallen mere decades after Philippos forged it together. Alexander's son, Argaios, wisely withdrew from most of Spania and from Gaul proper. would've been an endless quagmire to stay there.


...my point is: holding all of Persia would've been much the same. You either "go native" and lose greece proper after some time, or you try to impose Greek rule and you get overthrown before long. I do agree with you, then, that you'd get a "Macedonian" Empire that would be Persian... because it would probably be a Persian Empire with a Macedonian dynasty, which no longer even includes Macedon itself! My bet is that Alexander would just head East, establish his capital in Persepolis, and rule from there.

He at least dipped his sword in the Indus, depending on whose version of the histories you listen to - symbolic, but Alexander always did have a flair for the dramatic, even when fighting alongside Phillip.

In fairness, the bits of Persia he kept were the richer spoils, and give the empire more natural, defensible borders than the Tigris. Let the Persians fight over the deserts and mountains, so long as Mesopotamia and Armenian, and the Caucus mountain passes that defend it, are Greek. Plus, the man's patronage to cities like Alexandria (OTL Baghdad), Kaspioi (OTL Baku), Dilmun and Organa helped cement the region and it's riches to the Macedonians and allowed for his sons to complete the conquest of Arabia. Making the Persian Gulf, name be damned, a Greek lake as much as the Med and Red is Alexander's greatest legacy, that and the building projects.

Granted, a legacy he nearly squandered by driving into Gaul, but hey, you can't have everything. And, as you pointed out, Argaios at least settled things nice enough by pulling out of Northern Gaul to keep the Med, while establishing a friendly client kingdom to the North. Pushing to make the Istros (OTL Danube) River the Northern Border likely helped too, especially as the other Celts, Germanics and Nords began to get their acts together. What Phillip and Alexander did by the sword, Argaios did by the pen.

Alexander had the capability to conquer whole kingdoms, and the bad luck to have his father beat him to most of them.
 
The way I see it, if Philippos dies, Alexander carries out the big plan, but doesn't make a deal. He conquers all of Persia (or dies trying, but let's assume he makes it), and then he has to actually pacify it.

Alexander conquering all of Persia looks unlikely to me, whilst the Macedonian army was (then atleast) the most disciplined and best trained military force, the Persians need to inflict only one big victory on Alexander’s army for Macadonia to force him to give up his campaign by lack of skilled soldiers. Whilst Persia has access to the manpower of all of greater Iran.
EDIT: Also let's not forget that if Alexander continues east he will be seen as a foreign invader instead of a liberator, like happened when Philippos marched into Egypt.

Plus Alexander would be less experienced then in his highday and he always was a rather reckless general, so I could see him doing something stupid like crossing the river Granicus whilst the Persians hold the high ground at the other siding, leading to the destruction of his army in the river. (Just an example)
 
Last edited:
Top