DBWI: Macedon conquers all of Persia

  • Thread starter Deleted member 14881
  • Start date
The point if that we don't much about Macedon. Most sources about come from Roman, Persian and Carthaginian historians. The Greek historical writings that survived the Celtic pillages were mostly preserved in Athens, which was not sympathetic to the Macedons, and transmitted to us through Roman manuscripts or sometimes just Aramaic later translations.
There are hints suggesting Macedonian style of combat was actually better than usually thought of - well, before the military reforms of Darius V. It is known that he really borrowed many new tactics and weapons from the Greek... I wonder whether those Greeks might indeed have been Macedons in fact.
But yes, that map fairly overestimates what a tiny nation with few brilliant moments in its history could have realistically have done at any given time without an almost ASBish amount of luck.
 
We don't know much, but we've got enough to get a decent, if rough idea. Macedon was a little kingdom in Northern Greece. It had a good military--good enough to dominate many of its neighbors--and when it had competent leaders--Philip II, Ptolemy I, Philip IV--it would make significant gains. However the administration system it used was poor, and the monarchy was horrifically unstable--of the three great Macedonian kings I mentioned, only Ptolemy died a natural death. Further, for every genius the Argeads produced, they shot up at least twice as many mediocrities and lunatics--Prince Alexander, Philip III, Amyntas IV, Prince Meleager, Prince Ptolemias, Ptolemy II, Philip V, etc.--and because of the lousy succession laws, even if they never got to inherit the throne outright, these twits managed to destablize things so that the really great kings never were able to shine quite so much as they could have.
 
Philip is definitely the man for the job. He did win a fairly major war against Persia late in his reign, culminating with the sack of Antioch.

OOC: Antioch was founded after the establishment of Seleucid Empire by King Seleucus I Nicator, named after his father, Antiochus...so in this ATL it would be butterflied away...

IC: This isn't really an ASB. Macedonians DID have a much better military system and organization than the Persians...have you guys heard of Phezetairoi (heavy infantry, armed with long pikes that could be used to impale the charge from enemy cavalry and to keep enemy infantry with shorter weapons at bay) and Hetairoi (the first real shock cavalry that ever created in this world)? Both of them were excellent parts in Macedonian army, and I'd say that if the civil war never happened, it's certainly possible for Alexander III of Macedon to defeat the weaker Persian army, sack the Persepolis, and conquer the entirety of Persia all the way to Indus and Oxus...

Honestly, as a White European I'm feel offended by the Asian's racism in this site... (OOC: ;) )
 
Mongols, actually. If they had been united under a good leader, like, say, the Temudjin guy who got killed bya bear in the wilderness. Before that, he had a great shot at getting them all together. Too bad, I would love to have seen what would happen.

That is a pretentiously obscure figure to pick; so obscure he isn't even on *wikipedia. You should add him, btw, if you have time. Anyway, the clan of *Yesugei were so minor, I doubt they'd ever amount to more than the most celebrated vassals of the *Naimans, and the *Naimans of course had a good stab at dominating the Steppe. It's not like Steppe-based Empires are rare, but they only overthrow settled societies in exceptional cases.

OOC: *Chaos theory says these are likely to be different names. But keep in mind that the POD predates the Huns! In fact, there's only been one Great Steppe Society so far, and that's the Scythians and related peoples.
 
IC: This isn't really an ASB. Macedonians DID have a much better military system and organization than the Persians...have you guys heard of Phezetairoi (heavy infantry, armed with long pikes that could be used to impale the charge from enemy cavalry and to keep enemy infantry with shorter weapons at bay) and Hetairoi (the first real shock cavalry that ever created in this world)? Both of them were excellent parts in Macedonian army, and I'd say that if the civil war never happened, it's certainly possible for Alexander III of Macedon to defeat the weaker Persian army, sack the Persepolis, and conquer the entirety of Persia all the way to Indus and Oxus...

Honestly, as a White European I'm feel offended by the Asian's racism in this site... (OOC: ;) )

Alexander III? You mean, Prince Alexander, son of Philip II, who would have gotten that name if he'd ever been king? Or Alexander III, son of Ptolemy II? Because neither of them are going to pull this off. Alexander III's great accomplishment as a king was being less incompetent then his father and his brother--Prince Alexander was a twit with daddy issues who liked to play at being the ultimate warrior. If he'd had an ounce of sense, he could have given his father a run for his money during the civil war, but he kept coming down with glory disease, and handing Philip the advantage again and again...

As for the rest--first, you're greatly overestimating the Macedonian military machine--which I freely admit, was pretty damn good--and underestimating the Persians. This is one of those cases where it would come down to leadership. You're going to need a brilliant Macedonian and a really subpar Persian for things to even stand a chance. (Hence, Philip II, and Darius III at the start of his reign before he took a level in badass, where it really looked like the Empire might collapse for a while.) Then--yes, MAYBE you could see something like this. That said, it probably wouldn't last.
 
Alexander III? You mean, Prince Alexander, son of Philip II, who would have gotten that name if he'd ever been king? Or Alexander III, son of Ptolemy II? Because neither of them are going to pull this off.

The former. At the time of Ptolemy II Macedonia was pretty much already in the state of decline...

Alexander III's great accomplishment as a king was being less incompetent then his father and his brother--Prince Alexander was a twit with daddy issues who liked to play at being the ultimate warrior. If he'd had an ounce of sense, he could have given his father a run for his money during the civil war, but he kept coming down with glory disease, and handing Philip the advantage again and again...

IIRC there is one Greek historian (I forget the name, though...Socrates? Aristoteles? Archimedes?) who was speaking well about him...it's said that he inherited his father's military genius, when he's still teenager he acted as general for his father and was able to scored some victories from Thracians and Illyrians... The biggest problem for him was, like you said, the conflict with his father...

As for the rest--first, you're greatly overestimating the Macedonian military machine--which I freely admit, was pretty damn good--and underestimating the Persians.

Please remind me what kind of equipments that the Persians used at that time...? Wicker shield? Short spear? Wooden arrow?
And anyway, have you forget what has happened if the lighter-armored Persians met the heavier-armored Greeks in the battlefield, less than two centuries before?

This is one of those cases where it would come down to leadership. You're going to need a brilliant Macedonian and a really subpar Persian for things to even stand a chance. (Hence, Philip II, and Darius III at the start of his reign before he took a level in badass, where it really looked like the Empire might collapse for a while.) Then--yes, MAYBE you could see something like this. That said, it probably wouldn't last.

Indeed, Darius III was weak, incompetent, and cowardice king. Unfortunately enough for the Persians, he was killed fighting the rebellions in Bactria during 330 BC, and succeeded by his far more competent cousin, Cambyses III, who successfully tight the Empire firmly under his control...
Now imagine if the Macedonian civil war never happened, Alexander III proceed to invade Persia, and met with Darius III...
 
Mongols, actually. If they had been united under a good leader, like, say, the Temudjin guy who got killed bya bear in the wilderness. Before that, he had a great shot at getting them all together. Too bad, I would love to have seen what would happen.

What ASB. The Mongols were just a few nomads. True they could launch the odd bandit raid but they were totally incapable of organisation and planning. The idea that Mongols, even if united were capable of anything more than a raid on a villages is ludicrous.

I apologize if I misunderstood. I am sure that you only meant that if united under the guy who was killed by a bear the Mongols may have had a shot at uniting a few tribes.

I think it is possible that the Mongols could unite into a larger unit and call it say 'Mongolia'.
 
Y'know, these discussions give me an idea. This Alexander guy- he would have needed generals, right? Now, let's take some pretty good tacticians- say, Ptolemy, Seleucus, and Antiochus. You think these guys had a real chance of slicing up the empire after this happens? Personally, I wish they hadn't all been killed by the White Huns. They would have really helped with this empire. I can see it now- Ptolemy ruling Egypt, Seleucus getting Persia, and Antiochus getting Greece and Anatolia. Oh, man, that would be amazing.
 
Y'know, these discussions give me an idea. This Alexander guy- he would have needed generals, right? Now, let's take some pretty good tacticians- say, Ptolemy, Seleucus, and Antiochus. You think these guys had a real chance of slicing up the empire after this happens? Personally, I wish they hadn't all been killed by the White Huns. They would have really helped with this empire. I can see it now- Ptolemy ruling Egypt, Seleucus getting Persia, and Antiochus getting Greece and Anatolia. Oh, man, that would be amazing.

OOC: Errr, I'm sure you mean Antigonus...? Antiochus wasn't even one of Alexander's generals...
IC: Why would Alexander partitioned his empire amongst his own generals? He would surely give all of it to his son and heir...(Alexander IV? Phillip III?)
Or maybe you mean if Alexander died before having any successor? Well, in that case, both Macedon and Persia would be screwed...IIRC there were a lot of other Macedonian generals at that time, other than those three that you've already mentioned...? Perdiccas? Craterus? Meleager? Lysimachus? Antipater?
Alexander's empire would be more likely to be divided into seven or eight independent states, rather than just three...
 
OOC: Errr, I'm sure you mean Antigonus...? Antiochus wasn't even one of Alexander's generals...
IC: Why would Alexander partitioned his empire amongst his own generals? He would surely give all of it to his son and heir...(Alexander IV? Phillip III?)
Or maybe you mean if Alexander died before having any successor? Well, in that case, both Macedon and Persia would be screwed...IIRC there were a lot of other Macedonian generals at that time, other than those three that you've already mentioned...? Perdiccas? Craterus? Meleager? Lysimachus? Antipater?
Alexander's empire would be more likely to be divided into seven or eight independent states, rather than just three...

OOC: Sorry. I keep getting that mixed up.

IC: Just something I was dreaming up, I'm sure it's ASB.
 
OOC: Errr, I'm sure you mean Antigonus...? Antiochus wasn't even one of Alexander's generals...
IC: Why would Alexander partitioned his empire amongst his own generals? He would surely give all of it to his son and heir...(Alexander IV? Phillip III?)
Or maybe you mean if Alexander died before having any successor? Well, in that case, both Macedon and Persia would be screwed...IIRC there were a lot of other Macedonian generals at that time, other than those three that you've already mentioned...? Perdiccas? Craterus? Meleager? Lysimachus? Antipater?
Alexander's empire would be more likely to be divided into seven or eight independent states, rather than just three...

OOC: He means Antigonus, just spelt it wrong.
IC: Macedonian succession was almost always a bloodbath so much that the person in the bath drowns in the blood. It is likely that several generals will manage to beat the others. Man, I picture Antipater or his attempted usurper son, Cassander as King of Macedon, that Perdiccas ruling the old Achaemenid Empire and maybe Meleager squeezed into Egypt and that Antigonus in Asia Minor. A possibility.
 
IC: I was doing a paper on this subject just last month, did you know that there are several obscure sources. Who claim that the obnoxious little momma's boy we know as Prince Alexander was actually an imposter, and that the real one who was showing exceptional military potential was killed during his fathers invasion of Greece. They go on to further state that Olympias of Epirus claimed the imposter was her son in order to maintain her position in Philip II's court. He saw through the ruse and attempted to marry again in order to insure the succession, Olympias then through her "son" attempted to assert her authority over the court and thus launched the civil war.

OOC: Alexander is just to great to be written off as an obnoxious little momma's boy no matter what universe he's in.
 
Top