Did the Rebellion of Agis III and and Memnon of Thrace have any chance of succeeding?

Hello AH community, just me again with another question about the Spartans and how they could have done better......:p

Anyhow this seems to be interesting-what if the battle of Megalapolis was won by the Greek coalition, and Antipater was defeated and killed? Since I can not find any details of the battle I will just assume a better performance by the Greek troops or that Memnon of Thrace and Agis III manages to coordinate attacks and weaken the Macedoinan armies more. Who is left to defend Macedonia? Will Alexander have to rush back to Greece to prevent his homeland from being lost? Or will the Greeks ask for peace with the liberation of the Peloponnesus? And will Macedonia accept it? What about the Persian empire that funded the Greek armies?

Any ideas?
 
More troops are quickly raised by whoever Antipater's second in command was. Memnon and Aegis are crushed in a second battle. Makedon was not drained of manpower in this period like it would be by the 270s. It was a prime recruiting ground. Any defeat is not going to be decisive-the Greeks simply did not have the numbers or capability to pull it off-so most of the army is still going to escape intact, and the losses easily be replaced.
 
More troops are quickly raised by whoever Antipater's second in command was. Memnon and Aegis are crushed in a second battle. Makedon was not drained of manpower in this period like it would be by the 270s. It was a prime recruiting ground. Any defeat is not going to be decisive-the Greeks simply did not have the numbers or capability to pull it off-so most of the army is still going to escape intact, and the losses easily be replaced.

Who was Antipater's second in command? (Genuinely curious, no sarcasm).

And are any subordinates of the Macedonians competent? If poorly led they can still suffer defeats, and in this case I don't think the Greeks and Thracians have to completely annihilate Macedonian armies to win their independence, just expelling their presence will be enough IMO. With a war against Persia Alexander might agree to a peace so that the conquest of the Achaemenids will not be jeopardized. Also is it possible for Athens to rebel, even though "it was favoured the most", like they did a couple years later? If they did the chance of Greek success will be that much higher.....

So is a Greece-wide rebellion (with Athens involved too) combined with a Thracian rebellion be enough to pressure the Macedonians to give them independence? Or will they just be swamped by numbers in the end like you said?
 
Who was Antipater's second in command? (Genuinely curious, no sarcasm).

And are any subordinates of the Macedonians competent? If poorly led they can still suffer defeats, and in this case I don't think the Greeks and Thracians have to completely annihilate Macedonian armies to win their independence, just expelling their presence will be enough IMO. With a war against Persia Alexander might agree to a peace so that the conquest of the Achaemenids will not be jeopardized. Also is it possible for Athens to rebel, even though "it was favoured the most", like they did a couple years later? If they did the chance of Greek success will be that much higher.....

So is a Greece-wide rebellion (with Athens involved too) combined with a Thracian rebellion be enough to pressure the Macedonians to give them independence? Or will they just be swamped by numbers in the end like you said?
Alexander has to be dead in my opinion for any rebellion to succeed. Athens in this period is under what I'll call "The Phocion Consensus" i.e. Phocion's faction generally had the upper hand in Athenian politics at this time and they were not about to plunge into war. Consider, even when Harpalus arrived with a literal treasure trove, along with mercenaries (with the ability to hire more mercenaries readily available from when Alexander dismissed all of the satrapal mercenaries hired while he was away in India), they still didn't rebel. The same would be true for a lot of the Greek states. Alexander scared the shit out of them when he destroyed Thebes.
 
Alexander has to be dead in my opinion for any rebellion to succeed. Athens in this period is under what I'll call "The Phocion Consensus" i.e. Phocion's faction generally had the upper hand in Athenian politics at this time and they were not about to plunge into war. Consider, even when Harpalus arrived with a literal treasure trove, along with mercenaries (with the ability to hire more mercenaries readily available from when Alexander dismissed all of the satrapal mercenaries hired while he was away in India), they still didn't rebel. The same would be true for a lot of the Greek states. Alexander scared the shit out of them when he destroyed Thebes.

Well Athens doesn't neccesarily have to be in the rebellion, I only tossed it in when it might make the chance of success higher, however if is is unlikely for them to join then I guess they will sit out of this one.

If Alexander isn't in Macedonia proper then isn't he as good as dead to the Greeks considering that he won't be there to command defence forces? I think between the subduing of the Greeks and Thracians versus the conquest of the Achaemenids Alexander will chose the Persians, thus buying more time for the rebellion to succeed. Also going by OTL trends if Alex was to adopt Persian customs and train Persians in phalanx then he might not mind losing Macedonia at all.

It will be quite interesting though-Sparta-led Greek cities in a league, independent Macedonian Thracia, neutral Athens alone, and a massive Alexandrian Empire pretty much replacing the Persian empire, or like an earlier Selceucid Empire maybe?

Is this plausible?
 
Well Athens doesn't neccesarily have to be in the rebellion, I only tossed it in when it might make the chance of success higher, however if is is unlikely for them to join then I guess they will sit out of this one.
For the rebellion to have any chance of success, the financial, naval, and political clout of Athens is essential.

If Alexander isn't in Macedonia proper then isn't he as good as dead to the Greeks considering that he won't be there to command defence forces?
You're seriously underestimating how much Alexander was feared. There was a strong initial reaction against revolting when Alexander was first claimed to be dead because they weren't 100% sure he was dead. It was only after they were absolutely certain he was dead that they were whipped into war frenzy.


I think between the subduing of the Greeks and Thracians versus the conquest of the Achaemenids Alexander will chose the Persians, thus buying more time for the rebellion to succeed. Also going by OTL trends if Alex was to adopt Persian customs and train Persians in phalanx then he might not mind losing Macedonia at all.
I just don't see how really. Consider that "a lot" of casualties for the battle of Megalopolis for the Makedonians amounted to 3,500 out of an army of 40,000. Even in a loss, the Spartans only suffered 5,300 casualties.The Makedonians could afford to suffer serious losses and still replace them easily, the Spartans could not. Assuming that the Spartans are somehow able to win battle after battle against Antipater, Alexander is coming back to Greece at some point anyway. His future plans to conquer the Carthaginians almost certainly would involve a path taken through Magna Graecia into Sicily and the North Africa. Doubly so if he has to put down a rebellion in Greece anyway.


The only way to pull this off is to have Aegis be patient. He can learn a lot from Demosthenes and Hypeiredes in Greece. Wait until Alexander is dead or dying. Though, since that would require Aegis probably be a different person to wait another 8 years, just have Alexander die earlier. Have Aegis wait a little bit longer, and then you have Aegis rebelling alongside the Athenians and the Aitolians and most of the rest of Greece and you have a good chance of it succeeding.
 
For the rebellion to have any chance of success, the financial, naval, and political clout of Athens is essential.


You're seriously underestimating how much Alexander was feared. There was a strong initial reaction against revolting when Alexander was first claimed to be dead because they weren't 100% sure he was dead. It was only after they were absolutely certain he was dead that they were whipped into war frenzy.



I just don't see how really. Consider that "a lot" of casualties for the battle of Megalopolis for the Makedonians amounted to 3,500 out of an army of 40,000. Even in a loss, the Spartans only suffered 5,300 casualties.The Makedonians could afford to suffer serious losses and still replace them easily, the Spartans could not. Assuming that the Spartans are somehow able to win battle after battle against Antipater, Alexander is coming back to Greece at some point anyway. His future plans to conquer the Carthaginians almost certainly would involve a path taken through Magna Graecia into Sicily and the North Africa. Doubly so if he has to put down a rebellion in Greece anyway.


The only way to pull this off is to have Aegis be patient. He can learn a lot from Demosthenes and Hypeiredes in Greece. Wait until Alexander is dead or dying. Though, since that would require Aegis probably be a different person to wait another 8 years, just have Alexander die earlier. Have Aegis wait a little bit longer, and then you have Aegis rebelling alongside the Athenians and the Aitolians and most of the rest of Greece and you have a good chance of it succeeding.


Oh..... So the Greeks+Thracians are going to be overwhelmed through Macedonian numbers, and without the power of Athens the rebellion will be underpowered like OTL, while Alexander will scare the other Greek States so much that they won't revolt....

In the OP I stated that Antipater is killed as his army was routed near Megalopolis, would a lack of a clear commander throw the Macedonian defence into chaos or will they still rally?

I kinda engineered this scenario so that the Greeks will be independent while Alex is still alive but I guess that's not to be....:(
 
Top