Hellenistic Timeline Scenarios

[Gildedthorn]

I am starting to like the Eumenes scenario more and more. Though someone did mention that united empires have been done to death.

I do know that I want to focus a lot more on cultural, economic, societal changes over the military aspects, though considering the age war won't be far behind.



This timeline will be to some degree a rome screw, since it is going to focus on the Hellenistic Kingdom(s) not rome. Not sure atm what I will do with the Romans, but I will come up with something.

Is there any way to for Rome to control the Italian Peninsula and the major islands, but be unable to expand further? Or would that situation inherently make Rome too powerful?

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Is there any way to for Rome to control the Italian Peninsula and the major islands, but be unable to expand further? Or would that situation inherently make Rome too powerful?

It's admittedly been a long time since I remember reading it, but I believe this was partially the premise of Daeres' old timeline "Support your Local Satrap."

 

[bpbruce]

I can see your logic but I'm not sure I agree 100%. The strength of the Diadochii didn't depend as much on the size of the territory they controlled as on their access to high quality troops from Macedonia and its surrounding areas. "Macedonian Phalangites" were highly prized, so much so that contemporary accounts often distinguished between them and other phalangites when describing the size of the armies. And bear in mind that 40,000 "Macedonians" had conquered the entire Persian / Alexandrian empire only 30 years previously. When Demetrius seized Macedon from Cassander it really threw the remaining Successors into a panic - something you wouldn't have expected from the physical size of the kingdom

The argument about Pyrrhus wanting to keep his capital close to his ancestral homelands could have been made for Alexander too who was comfortable ruling from Babylon (even if no one else was). Pyrrhus was no less ambitious and skilled a general than Alexander (all the contemporaries agree) - he just lacked opportunity.

Pyrrhus was able to stand off against Demetrius in OTL so a civil war scenario is not unreasonable.

Another way to put Pyrrhus into control of the Antigonids is to have Demetrius win Ipsus by returning to the battle after his victory on the right flank and avoiding the massed elephants - but dying in the process. This would leave Pyrrhus in a strong position with only Demetrius' 18 year old son in the way of a coup.

As for locating the capital at Byzantium, it is an odd objective. But I could make a case for Pyrrhus founding a capital there in honour of a glorious victory against the Galatians nearby or if the Bosphoran Kingdom is to become much more important then Byzantium essentially controls their grain exports.

'in honor of a glorious victory against the Galatians'- or by recruiting Galatians and training them to the level of the old Macedonian Phalanx? Caesar had his Gaul legion, Pyrrhus could have had Galatian legions, a big glob of manpower to sweep across the Hellenic kingdoms like Caesar swept through the Med.