DBWI-No Alexander the Great?

Alexander Molossos I of Epirus, much better known as Alexander "the Great" was probably one of the greatest general, statesman, politician, and king of the Classical era, and countless books have been written about him and his amazing, sometimes considered impossible conquests and feats. His political union of Magna Graecia and Sicily was a master stroke in politics. His conquest of the entirety of Italia and what was considered to be his greatest military achievement-the capture of Carthage is still studied even to this day, and his reforms to the traditional pike phalanx with the addition of maneuverable swordsmen from the gauls of Italia and home-grown thureophoroi, thorakitai, and peltasts allowed it to be the dominant tactic of war, trouncing all before it until the horse archers came along, but then, that was a long time after Alexander the Great....

So, what would the world be like today if Alexander the Great never existed, got killed early, or didn't manage his conquests or reform the pike phalanx? What will Italia, Magna Graecia, Sicily, and Africa look like today? Will there be a bastion of Punic strength in Iberia if they hadn't lost their home city? And can the Italians form some sort of kingdom if they hadn't be crushed? Would the Greeks of Italy kept bickering until they fall apart seperately?

I know the butterfly's are huge, but seriously, this seems like an awesome world to explore....so.....


GO!!
 
Well for one thing, Alexander probably wouldn't have been such a common choice of name for European kings. That could be a good thing, though - seriously, it's incredibly confusing to read about some of the conflicts (and treaties) of the early mediaeval period, when half of the kings involved are called Alexander, sometimes with the same regnal number as well! (Remember, at one point Alexander III of Aragon was allied with Alexander III of Avignon and Alexander IV of Lorraine against Alexander V of Burgundy, Alexander IV of Venice and Alexander II of Normandy!)

OoC: I'm rubbish at thinking up different nation/region names, so sorry for using real ones!
 
If he was killed during the Battle of Padosia, it can be surmised that the Greek cities would gravitate to Syracuse, as it was prior. It was a rising star and proved to be more than a match against Carthage in its countless wars over Sicily. By no means would you have an empire comparable to Alexander's (improbable) but Syracuse would at least dominate Magna Greacia, perhaps even the whole of Italy. Who would stop them?
 
Syracuse would at least dominate Magna Greacia, perhaps even the whole of Italy. Who would stop them?
The Etruscans, with their somewhat untrustworthy Sabine allies, provided Alexander with some of his toughest fights in Italy, so maybe they might have come to dominate the centre and north of the peninsula.
 
Well...one obvious difference might be the butterflying away of his nephew Alexander of Macedonia's death fighting the Persians, and the Macedonian Succession Crisis that followed. The fallout from which was what allowed Alexander the Great's grandson Iolaus to conquer Macedonia and take the title of Basileus ton Basileon for the Aeacid dynasty, uniting Magna Graecia, Macedonia, Italy and Sicily.

In many ways, I find Iolaus even more interesting than his grandfather. Not only did he take Macedonia, but he brought Greek colonisation even further afield, establishing cities on the northern coast of the Hospitable Sea. Especially Alexandria, on the New Epirus peninsula. And he was the one who encouraged the growth of Buddhism in the West, fusing it with the pantheon in order to establish a priesthood that flourished under royal patronage. Which would never have happened if he hadn't developed relations with Bactria to undermine the Persians.

I doubt even he would have guessed how popular it would be, though... or that Buddhist monasteries would be found as far afield as the New World.

AN: The 'Hospitable Sea' is, apparently, what the Greeks called the Black Sea. New Epirus is Crimea.

Since Greco-Buddhism was a thing OTL, and since the butterflies here would be immense, I thought I'd have a little fun...
 
Buddhist monasteries would be found as far afield as the New World
Yeah, despite the rise of the later 'messianic' religions, it's still Buddhism which is dominant in Zephyria. It makes the current Zephyr-Indus conflict over oil rights on the Akkadian peninsula all the more sad (not that inter-religion conflicts are better, it's just a shame that both nations have disregarded Buddhist peaceful teachings.

OoC: Zephyria is somewhere in the OTL Americas, from the Greek for the west wind: Zephyrus (ζέφυρος). The Akkadian peninsula is Arabia.
I thought someone would probably inject some potentially controversial religious comments, so...
 
OOC: This is actually a triple-blind WI, as it is positing an alternate world (i.e. something other than OTL) from another alternate world's perspective.
 
Well for one thing, Alexander probably wouldn't have been such a common choice of name for European kings. That could be a good thing, though - seriously, it's incredibly confusing to read about some of the conflicts (and treaties) of the early mediaeval period, when half of the kings involved are called Alexander, sometimes with the same regnal number as well! (Remember, at one point Alexander III of Aragon was allied with Alexander III of Avignon and Alexander IV of Lorraine against Alexander V of Burgundy, Alexander IV of Venice and Alexander II of Normandy!)

OoC: I'm rubbish at thinking up different nation/region names, so sorry for using real ones!

OOC::D

IC: I know right?! I love history as a subject but having to memorize different kings called Alexander which are more often then not identical is simply torture in history class and tests. So maybe there will be at least one benefit with no Alexander!;)

If he was killed during the Battle of Padosia, it can be surmised that the Greek cities would gravitate to Syracuse, as it was prior. It was a rising star and proved to be more than a match against Carthage in its countless wars over Sicily. By no means would you have an empire comparable to Alexander's (improbable) but Syracuse would at least dominate Magna Greacia, perhaps even the whole of Italy. Who would stop them?

I do wonder how the Italains expected to win at Padosia. Alexander had already beaten them twice and even though he wouldn't show his full talents until later he was way too prepared for them. Maybe a traitor sold him out or something? But the selected capital city of Alexander's empire does seem like a strong candidate for unifying Sicily and Italy, but hadn't the Magna Graecians always united whenever faced by a common powerful enemy?, however if the Syracusans can divide and conquer, then they might even replicate at least some parts of Alexander's conquests! Did they have the population to conquer and hold so much territory though?

The Etruscans, with their somewhat untrustworthy Sabine allies, provided Alexander with some of his toughest fights in Italy, so maybe they might have come to dominate the centre and north of the peninsula.

This seems likely in my opinion. Without an Alexander to lead them the Syracusans wouldn't be able to inflict so many crushing defeats to the Rasna (what the Etruscans called themselves) and they were independent and stubborn as hell. If they weren't almost completely wiped out or Hellenised we might see a very interesting civilization form in Italia. Does anyone here know of their customs, history, social structures and such?

Well...one obvious difference might be the butterflying away of his nephew Alexander of Macedonia's death fighting the Persians, and the Macedonian Succession Crisis that followed. The fallout from which was what allowed Alexander the Great's grandson Iolaus to conquer Macedonia and take the title of Basileus ton Basileon for the Aeacid dynasty, uniting Magna Graecia, Macedonia, Italy and Sicily.

In many ways, I find Iolaus even more interesting than his grandfather. Not only did he take Macedonia, but he brought Greek colonisation even further afield, establishing cities on the northern coast of the Hospitable Sea. Especially Alexandria, on the New Epirus peninsula. And he was the one who encouraged the growth of Buddhism in the West, fusing it with the pantheon in order to establish a priesthood that flourished under royal patronage. Which would never have happened if he hadn't developed relations with Bactria to undermine the Persians.

I doubt even he would have guessed how popular it would be, though... or that Buddhist monasteries would be found as far afield as the New World.

AN: The 'Hospitable Sea' is, apparently, what the Greeks called the Black Sea. New Epirus is Crimea.

Since Greco-Buddhism was a thing OTL, and since the butterflies here would be immense, I thought I'd have a little fun...

OOC: Me like.

IC: Yep, the death of Alexander III of Macedon's death during the Battle of the Granicus River near Troy in 334 BCE (ironically the year Alexander I entered Tarentum to begin his campaign) really hurt the Macedonians, and when Memnon of Rhodes who recovered from his illness with his veteran mercenary army took the Aegan islands and landed in Macedonia, the Athenians and Spartans led a revolt and they got hit hard. The trade-based Rhodian Empire came off quite well from the Persian wars, although Alex probably got the last laugh as the Achaemenids fell apart as a direct result of the war and meddling by Ioulas.

Iola's was an amazing individual but personally Alexander the Great will always be more fun for me to study simply because he built up the foundations for his grandson to do all the amazing things he did. But I do wonder what religion will take the place of Buddhism, and how a Pantheon staying as it was originally will affect the ancient world. Maybe less wars stopped or prevented without the peaceful aspects of Buddha intervening? Yikes.

Yeah, despite the rise of the later 'messianic' religions, it's still Buddhism which is dominant in Zephyria. It makes the current Zephyr-Indus conflict over oil rights on the Akkadian peninsula all the more sad (not that inter-religion conflicts are better, it's just a shame that both nations have disregarded Buddhist peaceful teachings.

OoC: Zephyria is somewhere in the OTL Americas, from the Greek for the west wind: Zephyrus (ζέφυρος). The Akkadian peninsula is Arabia.
I thought someone would probably inject some potentially controversial religious comments, so...

Even though this should probably go to chat the oil conflict is very sad indeed. What people will do for resources to run their luxuries....

Back on track how will Zephyria be discovered in this alternate world? Will it be gradual like OTL with the Punics, then Massalians, slowly trading and building up towns or being more sudden and violent? Without the refugees of Carthage fleeing Alexander will the Punics of Ibeira ever develop into Albion or seize control of the Pillar of Herakles? Too much butterflies!

OOC: This is actually a triple-blind WI, as it is positing an alternate world (i.e. something other than OTL) from another alternate world's perspective.

OOC: Wat.:neutral:
 
One butterfly is what happens to the Persian empire and its revival. There were repeated attempts by various Greek states, the one by Macedon is mentioned by the other commentators, to invade Persia and detach Egypt and parts of Asia Minor, which failed mainly because of lack of Greek unity. Without the focus on the western end of the Mesogeios another attempt at invading the Persian empire may well have been made again and succeeded.
 
OOC: One problem with DBWI threads where the Roman Empire is butterflied away is that most of English-speakers' geographical terms in the region come from Latin. Fortunately, Wikipedia is quite helpful in providing the Greek alternatives.
 

Fo_Real

Banned
Well...one obvious difference might be the butterflying away of his nephew Alexander of Macedonia's death fighting the Persians, and the Macedonian Succession Crisis that followed. The fallout from which was what allowed Alexander the Great's grandson Iolaus to conquer Macedonia and take the title of Basileus ton Basileon for the Aeacid dynasty, uniting Magna Graecia, Macedonia, Italy and Sicily.

In many ways, I find Iolaus even more interesting than his grandfather. Not only did he take Macedonia, but he brought Greek colonisation even further afield, establishing cities on the northern coast of the Hospitable Sea. Especially Alexandria, on the New Epirus peninsula. And he was the one who encouraged the growth of Buddhism in the West, fusing it with the pantheon in order to establish a priesthood that flourished under royal patronage. Which would never have happened if he hadn't developed relations with Bactria to undermine the Persians.

I doubt even he would have guessed how popular it would be, though... or that Buddhist monasteries would be found as far afield as the New World.

AN: The 'Hospitable Sea' is, apparently, what the Greeks called the Black Sea. New Epirus is Crimea.

Since Greco-Buddhism was a thing OTL, and since the butterflies here would be immense, I thought I'd have a little fun...

OOC: This is an awesome timeline and some one needs to write it
 
One butterfly is what happens to the Persian empire and its revival. There were repeated attempts by various Greek states, the one by Macedon is mentioned by the other commentators, to invade Persia and detach Egypt and parts of Asia Minor, which failed mainly because of lack of Greek unity. Without the focus on the western end of the Mesogeios another attempt at invading the Persian empire may well have been made again and succeeded.

The Persian empire was even bigger then Alexander's Empire (OOC: think Italia, Illyria, Macedonia, Sicily, Magna Graecia, Africa, with later descendants conquering southern Gaul, Libya, eastern Iberia, and making extensions in Africa)! I highly doubt anyone can invade it successfully-they will either be forced to retreat due to too tight a logistic line, be crushed by immense weight of numbers, or both. Instead, OTL it died a slow, painful death of a thousand cuts as a civil war between the Mesopotamian provinces and the Bactrian secessionists broke out, rebellions teared it apart, nobles in Egypt and elsewhere seceded for themselves, and the Saka came down from the steppes to pillage and ravage the landscape, securing the independent of the Bactrians and wrecking the Achaemenid empire.

But the return to glory at least for a while after Darius III, who was an average Shahanshah, under the reign of Xerxes III really gave the empire a second wind as he reorganized the already fractured kingdom and quashed resistance everywhere, and even conquered Arabia with its rich incense trade routes! But such a big empire was always too unstable IMO, and all it takes is one incompetent King to bring the system down. Which happened with Darius V.

OOC: One problem with DBWI threads where the Roman Empire is butterflied away is that most of English-speakers' geographical terms in the region come from Latin. Fortunately, Wikipedia is quite helpful in providing the Greek alternatives.

OOC: Very true.

OOC: This is an awesome timeline and some one needs to write it

OOC: I would but I don't have the time nor the knowledge to do so......:perservingface:
 
One of the bigger changes would be Alexander (the general from Syracuse.. yes that one) not stopping the Germanic migration towards southern Europe in its track, leading them to migrate east and just settle around the Germanic sea (OOC The Baltic Sea)! Maybe they could have brought what ever Syracusan/italic kingdom down !?
 
OOC: Me like.

OOC: Thanks! Glad you do.

IC: Yep, the death of Alexander III of Macedon's death during the Battle of the Granicus River near Troy in 334 BCE (ironically the year Alexander I entered Tarentum to begin his campaign) really hurt the Macedonians, and when Memnon of Rhodes who recovered from his illness with his veteran mercenary army took the Aegan islands and landed in Macedonia, the Athenians and Spartans led a revolt and they got hit hard. The trade-based Rhodian Empire came off quite well from the Persian wars, although Alex probably got the last laugh as the Achaemenids fell apart as a direct result of the war and meddling by Ioulas.

Iola's was an amazing individual but personally Alexander the Great will always be more fun for me to study simply because he built up the foundations for his grandson to do all the amazing things he did. But I do wonder what religion will take the place of Buddhism, and how a Pantheon staying as it was originally will affect the ancient world. Maybe less wars stopped or prevented without the peaceful aspects of Buddha intervening? Yikes.

IC: Oh, I wasn't knocking Alexander. Not in the least :)

Regarding that point... Not entirely sure. The thing is, there's far too many butterflies. Without Alexander and Iolaus and the power of the Hellenic world in the West, would we have seen more power in the Mediterranean centred in the East? Maybe one of the Near Eastern monotheistic faiths might have risen? Highly unlikely, of course, but with butterflies like this anything's possible.

Buddhism was definitely a peaceful influence on the Hellenic world. Though with some interesting wrinkles - like Herakles becoming the Bodhisattva of Courage and Strength - that prevented it from being purely pacifistic. Indeed, if it had been purely pacifistic I doubt Iolaus would have encouraged it as he did ;) I'd say that even more than preventing wars, its greatest impact was giving greater attention to ordinary people. Buddhist monks always stood up for the poor, and they were more than capable of cowing even the most powerful and wealthy. Which in turn,helped society become even more meritocratic and less authoritarian or oligarchic.

Back on track how will Zephyria be discovered in this alternate world? Will it be gradual like OTL with the Punics, then Massalians, slowly trading and building up towns or being more sudden and violent? Without the refugees of Carthage fleeing Alexander will the Punics of Ibeira ever develop into Albion or seize control of the Pillar of Herakles? Too much butterflies!

Not sure. Though a later discovery - assuming a similar level of technical development to OTL - would be bad for the natives. Disease certainly did terrible things, but the fact that early settlement was largely confined to the coasts and didn't penetrate the interior beyond trade for centuries allowed the tribes of the interior to adapt and change, eventually becoming city-dwellers themselves. A later arrival with fire-weapons would have likely seen an even more violent conquest, that didn't allow the natives to develop.

OOC: This is an awesome timeline and some one needs to write it

Thank you :) Unfortunately, am currently busy with another, and a TL would require far more research on my part...but it's an idea that I like :D
 
Buddhism was definitely a peaceful influence on the Hellenic world. Though with some interesting wrinkles - like Herakles becoming the Bodhisattva of Courage and Strength - that prevented it from being purely pacifistic. Indeed, if it had been purely pacifistic I doubt Iolaus would have encouraged it as he did ;) I'd say that even more than preventing wars, its greatest impact was giving greater attention to ordinary people. Buddhist monks always stood up for the poor, and they were more than capable of cowing even the most powerful and wealthy. Which in turn,helped society become even more meritocratic and less authoritarian or oligarchic.
Maybe one of the Near Eastern monotheistic faiths might have risen?
I think this is potentially one of the biggest butterflies. As others have said, maybe without Alexander* the Hellenes would have gone east and, if the Persian Empire had then fallen earlier, could have brought the Hellenes, with their pantheon, into conflict with the various Indus peoples before Buddhism had a chance to spread peacefully.
I don't think we can even make a guess at what the dominant religion would then be. There were loads of weird local religions tolerated by the Persians, any one of which might have had some sort of resurgance. Or maybe the Olympic pantheon would have lasted longer as it was - maybe with some sort of injection from the Egyptian pantheon?**

* Every so often when I'm writing this I realise how there aren't many people in history who don't need an additional identifier. Despite the dozens (hundreds?) of important Alexanders in history, if someone says just 'Alexander', we all know who is meant. That's pretty awesome!
** Actually, that would make a great TL - a Hellenic conquering army worshipping some sort of fusion between Zeus and Ra!

OoC: really enjoying this DB - thanks @Commando Howiezter !
 
One thing occurs to me: the demographics of Albion could be widely different. You might have ended up with Northern peoples becoming the dominant ethnic group rather than Phoenician-descended settlers and the children they had when they began intermingling with the Celts.

OOC: Also enjoying immensely. Thank you!
 
*Time to breath some life into this thread*

With a COMPLTETLY different Religon in place instead of the OTL Buddhism, will there even be a driving force to move away from the aristocracy and give more power to the peoplel, forming constitutional monarchies, instead just staying at the age old system of kings passing down their thrones to their descendants? I don't think there was any Religon that (existed OTL anyway) could do this other than Buddhism?

An Egypt-Hellenic Combo Religon-that is far to awesome to comprehend. (Didn't OTL Ptolemies have that?) But I don't think it would have been the major force of change Buddhism was, since the Pantheon Gods are far from perfect, and the Egyptian Gods didn't nearly stress about equality and such as Buddhism.

Albion ruled by...barbarians? Does that mean they never industrialize or are soon conquered?! I can't imagin going there today and not seeing the Punic architecture and cities still flourishing..... If the OTL barbarians have anything to show us is that they can't compete with civilized peoples at all! Does that mean no Albion Empire?!

And for Zephyria I think that the natives were too settled to be dislodged easily-OTL it was mostly peaceful, small expansions, with few if any wars... But if there was even more of a tech gap then maybe we might see the continent drenched in blood!


OOC: Thank you guys, let's hope this universe doesn't die just yet!
 
Who would stop them?
Carthage. Aside from a few notable exceptions, most of Syracuse's history consisted of barely holding their own against Carthage. It was Carthaginian incompetence, not Syracusan brilliance, that prevented Syracuse from falling under Carthage's grasp. Eventually, Carthage is going to conquer Syracuse without outside intervention.

eThe big question, I think, is how this deals with Italian politics. There were 2 major non-Greek contenders for regional domination in Italy at this point. The city-state of Rome, which managed to unite all the Latin people's and, by the time of Alexander, shatter any Tyrrhenian hopes for domination over the region, and the Safinite Confederation. The Romans, by this time, had just united Latium and IIRC had defeated the Safinites in a war. So you probably eventually have Italy divided into 3-4 "spheres". The Romans will probably conquer the Tyrrhenians eventually, the Safinites might manage to secure control of the other southern Italian people's (such as the Brutians and Lukanians), and in the north, the Keltoi should probably remain dominant. I imagine Campania will remain a point of contention between the Romans and Safinites. One or the other might achieve the upper edge, depending on if the Safinites could conquer the city states in Megas Hellas, or if the Romans could subsume the Tyrrhenians first.
 
Well for one thing, Alexander probably wouldn't have been such a common choice of name for European kings. That could be a good thing, though - seriously, it's incredibly confusing to read about some of the conflicts (and treaties) of the early mediaeval period, when half of the kings involved are called Alexander, sometimes with the same regnal number as well! (Remember, at one point Alexander III of Aragon was allied with Alexander III of Avignon and Alexander IV of Lorraine against Alexander V of Burgundy, Alexander IV of Venice and Alexander II of Normandy!)

OoC: I'm rubbish at thinking up different nation/region names, so sorry for using real ones!

You are obviously disregarding two facts here, namely 1. that those Alexanders are better known by their nicknames (five of your six Alexanders are respectively: “The Blond" ("Sancho" in Tarragonese, from Greek "Xanthos"); "Martel" for the Aouenite, because he would not fight with a sword; “The Drunkard“ for the Burgondian one; “Ristozzero”, meaning “The Left-Handed”, for the Venitian one; and “Svend", “the Young”, for the Danish one). And the last one was never actually called Alexander in his lifetime, he used the native form Herrman IV von Lothringen; the name “Alexander” was only the translation used in the (Greek-written) chronicles of Tolemos of Alaud.

And 2. that Alexander was soon used as a title instead of a given name (it is a little-known fact, for instance, that this is the etymology of the Ksan of the Onogurs).

OoC: I did some very rough translations, call that poetic license if you want. In particular, there is little reason for Avignon/Aouenio to speak a Romance-related language, but Celtic is close to Italic and I went for fun over plausibility here. “Herrman” really is an approximate translation of “Alexander” (“leader of men” / “army-man”). “Alaud” is a vaguely plausible Celtic name for the city of Laon, which I chose at random as a strategic place in Northern France.

Also, you established the name of your kingdoms, but not their location; of these, Aragon, Avignon and Venice are already positioned (even if Venice itself did not exist, moving it would be very confusing), but Lorraine comes from Lothar and can be in any Germanic-speaking (or even once Germanic-invaded) region; ditto for Burgundy; finally, Normandy will by default be in Scandinavia, unless something weird happens up there. The Onogurs are of course OTL Hungarians. I firmly believe that in such a world, “Alexander” (and maybe “Iolaus”) will go the way “Caesar” and “Augustus” went OTL (this would be fun, since instead of Kaisers/Tsars we could have some Jules all over the place...)
 
An Egypt-Hellenic Combo Religon-that is far to awesome to comprehend. (Didn't OTL Ptolemies have that?)
Yes, but being top-down made it a bit superficial and it was soon superseded by Buddhism (at least in the metropolises - I believe it hung on in Upper Egypt (that is, south - I still find that confusing) for quite a while). Also, IIRC, some scholars now believe that some aspects of the OTL Ptolemaic combo-religion* were subsumed into Buddhist theology - specifically the soul's journey through an 'afterlife' after death and before reincarnation.
* I like that word/phrase - sounds like a special offer in a Pavlidis restaurant!
will the Punics of Ibeira ever develop into Albion
Albion ruled by...barbarians? Does that mean they never industrialize or are soon conquered?! I can't imagin going there today and not seeing the Punic architecture and cities still flourishing..... If the OTL barbarians have anything to show us is that they can't compete with civilized peoples at all! Does that mean no Albion Empire?!
If the Punics never expanded into Albion, I don't see it becoming civilised before the Early Modern Warming allows the Boreal ship people to start raiding. The Punics were able to hold them off so they never really amounted to anything, but without the Punics, maybe we'd have seen the Albion Isles as part of a Borealic Empire ruling the Cold Sea. On the other hand, given their history of back-stabbing each other in their own countries at that time, that might be too ASB!

OoC: Early Modern Warming = the Mediaeval Warm Period. Boreal ship people = the Vikings/Danes/Norse. Cold Sea = North Sea.
 
Top