Greek Black Ops Vs. Philip

"Black Ops" are not a recent invention. The japanese Ninja, the middle-eastern cult of "the old man on the mountain" are just two examples of ancient societs dedicated to political stealthy action. The existence of such
a society on Greece (or nearby) of fanatical killers-for-hire wouldn't require any radical socio-cultural change. Let further say that by 357 BC, Philip's victories agains the Illyrians and the power that they amassed for him had alarmed a group of Athenians, who laid a contract on his life. Supposing
they manage to kill him in 356 BC., would Macedon be broken by factions
fighting for power or would Alexander succeed his father in due time? Supposing the appointed regent for Alexander (who was then a newborn) usurps the crown, would he have a good chance of continuing Philip's policy of expansion in his place?
What would be Alexander's chance of being as successful as OTL
in this ATL?
 
Last edited:
I dont see why you need a group of ancient greek ninja-assassins to do this. Macedonian politics were brutal enough at the time, and the act of assassination was far from unknown to the greeks. All you need is some person with a reason to dislike or fear Phillip (greek city, macedonian noble, etc...) and the ability to either kill him or arrange for somebody else to do so.

Anyways, Alexander, being an infant at the time, is either killed or used as a figurehead by some contender for the macedonian throne. If he lives to adulthood he may one day reclaim his kingdom, but the odds of him doing so are slim. Macedon will probably face a few years of strife and civil war, as various nobles fight for control. The successor(s), whomever they may be, will most likely not be able or interested in attempting to unite greece.
 
Top