You know something I've been noticing, it seems, to me at least, the term 'Asia' has been primarily used to refer to the realm of the Achaemenid Empire and the Argead Empire as if it's a continuation of a "nation" or concept instead of it's use in OTL for the continent of Asia. Does that imply that the areas of the Argead and Achaemenid Empires are going to end up with a history of dynastic unity similar to that of China IOTL?

With the term for that Realm being Asia, which probably means the Continent of Asia will have a different name from OTL, or be concieved differently.
 
To contribute to the conversation, the historiography of the Middle East should be interesting. Macedon, a Greek kingdom, can assumed control of the Near East and its dynasts seem to be hinted to rule it for an extended period of time. Perhaps Greece ITTL would be viewed as an Asian or Near Eastern civilization as opposed to an European one.
 
You know something I've been noticing, it seems, to me at least, the term 'Asia' has been primarily used to refer to the realm of the Achaemenid Empire and the Argead Empire as if it's a continuation of a "nation" or concept instead of it's use in OTL for the continent of Asia. Does that imply that the areas of the Argead and Achaemenid Empires are going to end up with a history of dynastic unity similar to that of China IOTL?

With the term for that Realm being Asia, which probably means the Continent of Asia will have a different name from OTL, or be concieved differently.
This is actually something, or similar to something, I had thought about on my own recently - the idea of continents being conceptualized differently in allohistorical geography due to differences in the geopolitical element of it (which is subtle, but exists). Of all the potential alternate continents, "Asia" comprising the area commonly referred to as the Middle or Near East OTL made the most sense, as it has a large number of obvious geographical borders with other continents:
  • The Hellespont, Caucasus Mountains, and Caspian/Hyrcanian Sea with Europe.
  • The Isthmus of Suez with Africa.
  • The Hindu Kush with *Asia, if India is considered part of that continent; alternatively, if India is part of allohistorical Asia, the Himalayas and either the Arakan or Hengduan range as the subcontinent's borders with *Asia.
  • Depending on cultural barriers, the Elburz Mountains or a range further north with Central *Asia.
A similar note is that, unless some Italic civilization (not even necessarily Rome) does the unlikely and rises to dominate the Mediterranean ITTL, the continent we call Africa will probably have a substantially different common name. Libya seems the most likely one if we take the Hellenic civilization(s) of the Mediterranean to have a similar role of prominence in place name primacy as the Romans of OTL.
 
To contribute to the conversation, the historiography of the Middle East should be interesting. Macedon, a Greek kingdom, can assumed control of the Near East and its dynasts seem to be hinted to rule it for an extended period of time. Perhaps Greece ITTL would be viewed as an Asian or Near Eastern civilization as opposed to an European one.
I think that would be a possibility if Alexander's cultural fusion programs are successful ITTL. Helleno-Persian culture would probably dominate the lands of Asia in the Argead Empire but I doubt that the Hellenic League or Macedon would be very happy at the courting and eventual embracing of "eastern" practices, so they will have to be imposed upon by force if that is the case.

Rome and Eturia should also be very interesting with the rise of this fusion culture too since they might continue to preserve their old Greek practices while resisting the influence of this fusion culture as well, possibly ending the notion of Greco-Roman civilization for good.
 
"Asia" comprising the area commonly referred to as the Middle or Near East OTL made the most sense, as it has a large number of obvious geographical borders with other continents:
This was actually the case IOTL in Ancient Egypt, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Romans used similar naming...
 
I wouldnt be suprised if the Romans still become powerful ittl. They should still be able to take all of central italy, this was the era of the sammite wars. This would also allow them to focus elsewhere like Gaul or Hispania instead if the east. They may not be as rich, but if they worked with the Macedonians, they could have a powerful trading partner.
 
Oh, and when will the butterflies reach China? I understand that contacts with Greco-Bactria didn't happen until the 230s BC, but things are definitely going to be different, that's for sure.
 
It does make sense that Asia in this timeline gets conceptualized as more or less what we see as the Asian parts of the Middle East. However, I can still see a mediterranean regional concept and identity being a prominent thing, especially if the Greek and Phoenician cities and statelets end up more and more opposing and differentiating themselves from Persian influences should those continue to seep into basis of the Argead regime.

What the Mediterranean sea and region ends up called by the Greeks is a question in and of itself though. Mesogaian?
 
25. Alexander's second Indian campaign
25. Alexander’s second Indian campaign

The Great King Alexander, King of the Macedonians, the Persians, the Babylonians and all the peoples of Asia, Hegemon of the Hellenic League, Strategos Autokrator of the Italiote League, Son of Philippos Nikator, in the eighteenth year of his reign he marched the armies of the Macedonians and the Persians to India, to remind its inhabitants of their servitude to him and his dynasty.

- Excerpt from the Alexander inscription at Behistun, as commissioned by Philip III

Alexander’s several years of rest after the Sicilian campaign had effects both positive and negative. For theempire as a whole it was positive, the lack of extensive levies of men and goods to support campaigns of conquest allowed things to settle down. Prices of common goods such as barley, wheat and dates had risen sharply following the conquests of Philip II, probably because he and his son were more concerned with establishing their empire and supplying the army than with making sure the price of commodities remained low for the common people. At this point in Alexander’s reign however the prices had fallen considerably, even below those under the Achaemenids, testament to the new empire’s vibrant economy and in particular the flourishing agriculture of Mesopotamia, which was now unhindered by war and royal requisitioning. The new cities of Syria and Mesopotamia, such as Nikatoris, Herakleia-on-the-Tigris and Nikopolis, were growing steadily, every year immigrants from the Aegean arrived to settle in the east. The native Syrians and Babylonians too settled in those cities, as they were centres of economic activity, but they were prohibited from partaking in Hellenic civil culture, they could not sit on the city’s council or take part in its festivals. Despite these discriminatory practices it seems many of the new settled cities were evenly divided between Hellenic and Asian population. Trade, eased up by the enormous amounts of coins that Alexander had minted, seems to have doubled in comparison to Philip’s reign.

The negative effects were more personal in nature. The Great King lived in opulent luxury at either the Palace of Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon during winter or at Ekbatana or Pella during summer. Alexander thus oversaw various ceremonies and other somewhat dull matters of state, which were nevertheless just as important as triumphing on the battlefield. When not having to attend to long meetings with various advisors or overseeing the solving of disputes or the correct making of offerings to the gods Alexander spend his time in the way that any Macedonian monarch would do, by hunting and excessive drinking. The royal pairidaeza, walled parks with an abundance of flowers, trees and animals, spread throughout Mesopotamia and Western Iran were frequently visited by the Great King and his retinue.

The finest vintage of both Hellas and Persia was available in abundance for the king and his companions. Many among the Greeks looked down upon the Macedonians for their habit of drinking undiluted wine, but the Macedonians themselves saw nothing wrong with it and even seemed to have spread the practice to Persia. Like practically all Macedonian men Alexander drank heavily, but it seems that during this period his intake of alcohol increased even more. Drunken quarrels with his closest companions are not unheard of, and in one infamous example Alexander grabbed a spear of one of his guards and hurled it at Hephaistion, with whom he was arguing about who killed the most boars during a recent hunt. Luckily for both the Great King and his lover he missed. We do not know the aftermath of this incident, but perhaps the realization that he almost killed his dearest friend helped Alexander to break out of the self-destructive spiral he was in.

Another factor was probably an illness that Alexander suffered in 311 BCE, which is mentioned in the royal chronicles. While not certain what exactly afflicted him it seems that for several weeks the king’s life hung in the balance. Neither his Greek or his Babylonian doctors were able to effectively deduce what exactly Alexander suffered from, and in the end it were Egyptian doctors send by Bakenanhur who supposedly managed to cure the king. In the aftermath of his illness Alexander was more moderate in his consumption of wine, and sometimes even refused wine altogether for several weeks. Conspicuous consumption however remained a hallmark of the Argead court, even if its king did not always partake. By 310 Alexander had recovered and was relatively fit, even if we do take in account that by now he was nearing 50 and no longer possessed the eternal youth present in many of his images. Ptolemaios, in one of his more unflattering statements, remarks that by the time of his second Indian campaign Alexander’s hair was becoming thin.

1614109609198.png


Opulent gardens at the Palace of Nebuchadnezzar

This period of relative peace, there were some smaller military engagements on the frontier [1], came to an end in 310 BCE, when simultaneously several military crises confronted the nascent empire. The most immediate but also the least dangerous was an uprising in Persia under command of a certain Baryaxes. Harkening back to the glories of the Achaemenids he claimed descent from Darius the Great and openly declared Alexander an usurper. His biggest success was that he managed to occupy Pasargadai, the location of the tomb of Cyrus, for several weeks. From there he published several ‘royal’ edicts, which ranged from lowering the tax on possessing camels to granting the satrapy of Babylon to his father-in-law. His followers seemed to be mostly common bandits, dispossessed farmers and some disgruntled minor nobility. By and large it seems the Persians supported the Argead regime, and the rather sad revolt of Baryaxes is often seen as the last attempt at fomenting some kind of Persian resistance against the Macedonians. Ariobarzanes, the long-serving satrap of Persia quickly crushed Baryaxes, who died together with his troops, trampled underneath the hooves of the Argead cavalry.

The crisis that was most dire, and which would require direct royal intervention, took place on the banks of the Indus. The Indian satrapies had turned out to be both very valuable and rather volatile. Access to exotic goods, high-quality Indian steel, spices and gemstones all ensured that trade flourished, but at the same time there appeared to be a deep distrust between the new Macedonian rulers of the region and the local population. Already several uprisings had been brutally crushed by Lysimachos, satrap over most of the Indus Valley. The Macedonians suspected that the brahmans were behind the resistance, and often targeted them in retaliation for the intransigence of the Indians. The reason for Alexander to march east once again with a large force, and the difference between these and other revolts, was that the Nanda dynasty of Magadha had broken its treaty with Alexander and, possibly in conjunction with an uprising, invaded the Indus Valley.

In the aftermath of the battle of Ahicchatra peace had been signed between Alexander and the Nanda, but despite the successful blunting of the Argead assault it is hard to argue that the conflict had been a Nanda victory. Large parts of the Yamuna and Ganges valley had been devastated by the Macedonian advance and the human cost of the war had also not been insignificant. The prestige of the dynasty too had been afflicted, for Dhana Nanda now had to acquiesce to the Macedonians establishing a satrapy in India itself. Before the war Dhana Nanda had not been a popular ruler, and the war itself did not change that. Still, he managed to cling on for several years, dying in mysterious circumstances in 319 BCE. He was succeeded by his son Pabbata, but power was practically held by the minister and general Shriyaka. It seems that for several years the new administration decided to honour its treaty with the Macedonians, but this ended around 313 BCE. The reason for this change in attitude is much more rooted in the Nanda domestic situation than in any perceived Macedonian weakness. The Nanda were increasingly seen as incapable and corrupt, and it must have seemed as Magadha was headed for a regime change. It was thus that Shriyaka, in order to bolster both his own position as the dynasty’s, started preparations for his campaign to the west, to reclaim all of India and to drive away the mleccha [2].

In this endeavour he was egged on and supported by Chanakya, a teacher and philosopher who had worked at the university at Taxila and who wished for nothing more than for the barbarians to be driven out. A brilliant mind, Chanakya attempted to reform the Nanda state, despite having personally hated Dhana Nanda. He probably was instrumental in coordinating the uprisings along the Indus with the invasion of Shriyaka, because it is quite likely that he still had his contacts among the wise and learned of Taxila and the surrounding lands. Shriyaka thus marched west early in 310 and encountered minimal resistance, for the Macedonians were quite busy with the uprising among the population. Already the garrisons at Alexandria-on-the-Indus, commanded by Lysimachos himself, and at Artakameia were isolated and put under siege by the insurgents. Shriyaka himself, commanding an army supposedly 100000 strong, captured the city of Philippopolis Indike in June 310, destroying the city that Alexander had founded only several years before.

The military governor of Gandhara [3], Attalos son of Andromenes, and Poros, king of the Puru had in the meantime gathered their forces to confront and possibly delay Shriyaka, giving Alexander time to reach and relief his beleaguered forces. Near Bucephala they confronted Shriyaka, and after several days of skirmishing the two armies confronted each other on the battlefield. For the Macedonians and for Poros it was a crushing defeat. Shriyaka, who evidently had learned from his earlier encounter with Alexander, deployed his elephants on the flanks in order to deter the Macedonian cavalry while using his superior numbers and his longbows to grind down the phalanx. Inevitably gaps opened up after several hours of intense combat, which were exploited by Shriyaka’s elite infantry from the sreni guilds. Attalos’ phalangites were relatively inexperienced, most of them had not taken part in any of Alexander’s campaign, and thus broke their ranks relatively quickly. A last ditch attempt to salvage the situation by leading a cavalry charge ended with Attalos’ death and the complete disintegration of the Macedonian army. Poros, who held down one of the flanks with a force of his own, was quickly surrounded and he too died fighting. For Shriyaka the victory had been a vindication and the crowning achievement of all his work as minister and general. Perhaps his would be the honour of driving the barbarians beyond the Hindu Kush.

Now the road to Taxila was open, and it must have appeared as if victory was in his grasp. The king of Taxila, Omphis, had sent envoys to Shriyaka in order to strike a deal and possibly spare his city. Secret negotiations must still have been ongoing when in August 310 Perdikkas arrived with a 20000 strong force, mostly veterans that had been settled in Bactria. He had been ordered to act as vanguard for Alexander’s army, which by now was also on its way. Still, Shriyaka probably could have captured Taxila were it not for the monsoon rains, which started earlier than normal. These delayed supplies and reinforcements and prevented an easy crossing of the Hydaspes, which lay between Shriyaka’s army and Taxila. In the meantime the situation in the south had also changed, reinforcements under joint command of Peukestas and Antigonos’ son Demetrios had arrived via Arachosia and the Bolan Pass and had managed to break the sieges of Alexandria-on-the-Indus and Artakameia. Afterwards they marched north to Taxila, brutally supressing the revolts near the Indus, where they were to join up with Alexander.

Alexander arrived in India in October 310 with a 60000 strong army. Consisting off, among others, the elite regiments of the Argyraspidai (‘Silver shields’), the hetairoi and levied troops from the diverse array of peoples that his empire ruled, it was a fearsome force. One of the more notable regiments present were known in Greek as the Athanatoi, or the Immortals, recruited from the Iranian nobility who fought as heavily armoured cavalry. They also had a foot regiment, which fought not unlike the Macedonian hypaspistai, but with a more Iranian-style equipment, they used an tabar axe instead of a kopis sword. In order to prevent Shriyaka from crossing the Hydaspes Alexander quickly marched his army to the river, but in doing so he must have significantly exhausted it. It was thus in October 310 that Alexander and Shriyaka faced off once again.

Several weeks of manoeuvring followed, with Shriyaka or Alexander attempting to outflank their foe by crossing the river, only to be prevented from doing so by timely arrival of enemy forces. For Shriyaka, who was supported by a crumbling dynasty and for whom victory was of the utmost importance, it was important that he could strike fast. Some of his officers became disgruntled, accusing their commander of cowardice in face of the enemy. Alexander had no such criticism, and despite the great size of his empire he did manage to receive some reinforcements, testament to the logistical system that was put in place by the Achaemenids and which the Macedonians had used and improved upon. In the end it was thus Shriyaka who took the initiative in early November 310. He split his forces and crossed the river at two points, one to the north of the Macedonian camp and another to the south of it. He however deliberately botched the assault, he ordered his troops to cross over and skirmish with the Macedonians, but afterwards they had to retreat in order to convince the Macedonians to give chase.

1614109584918.png


Shriyaka’s elephants advance

The following battle was one of the most desperate and bloody of Alexander’s campaigns. He almost fell for Shriyaka’s trap, and while deploying his phalanx on the river’s eastern bank he was suddenly confronted by a overwhelming assault by the Nanda army. Over 200 elephants bore down on Alexander’s position while most of the Macedonian forces still were on the other side of the river. Fighting was fierce, but with his back to the river Alexander had no other option. His were elite forces, some even veterans of Philip’s campaigns in Greece, others had fought at Hyrkanis and Mepsila, and this was not the first time they had faced off against a numerically superior foe. Alexander and his bodyguard fought dismounted, and time and time again the phalanx repelled the Nanda assault. Improvised rafts made sure that reinforcements arrived. The tide of battle definitely turned when Poros the Younger, who had joined Alexander on his campaigns in Italy and Sicily and had remained at his court for several years, led his forces across the river further downstream and outflanked Shriyaka and stormed his camp, torching it. While confusion reigned in Shriyaka’s camp Alexander could finally start his own advance, driving back the Indian infantry and elephants, many of whom ran amok their own troops.

Shriyaka attempted to salvage the situation, he had kept his more elite forces and his chariots in reserve to deliver the finishing blow. Sadly for him however the situation was by now unsalvageable. His elite infantry was harassed by Saka horse-archers and their formation smashed apart by Median and Persian cavalry. The chariots, although an impressive sight, were an antiquated weapon at best and they too were swept aside. Despairing at the sight Shriyaka decided to surrender, and he send an envoy to Alexander to parlay peace. Shriyaka had to release all his prisoners and return the valuables plundered on his campaign, but in return he was allowed to return to Magadha unharassed. As the sun set that day over the blood-swollen Hydaspes Alexander had won a great battle, but at a high cost. The Argead army had lost 5000 men, many of them veterans with invaluable experience. For later generations of Argead rulers the battle would become a legendary one, with Alexander and a few companions holding back a million Indians with contemptuous ease, but for them too it was a reminder of a time when the Great King of Asia could triumph in India.

Shriyaka returned east after the battle, a broken man who could have won it all, had he been more daring early on in his campaign. He did not live long afterwards, supposedly killed by some officers over a petty dispute. The titular Nanda ruler Pabbata also disappears from the record soon after the battle, and with him the Nanda dynasty. Infighting in Magadha ensured that no new conquering dynasty would arise from there for some time, instead the various states of the Ganges would reassert their independence. When, in the end, a ruler united both the Indus and the Ganges in a single empire it was not from Pataliputra that he marched forth but from Taxila. Omphis too was one of the losers of the conflict, his treachery had been found out and he lost his head in return. His territory was granted to Poros the Younger, who now ruled an extensive client kingdom. In hindsight perhaps a bit too extensive, although Alexander himself did not have to deal with that. Alexander remained in India for some time, making sure that order was restored, but he would not for now march east again, despite the dissolution of the Nanda Empire. Limits had been reached, that much Alexander had learned over the preceding years, and trying to exceed that would only invite disaster. It was early in 309 that Alexander went west again, and not long after he must have heard about the situation in Italy.

Footnotes
  1. See update 23
  2. Sanskrit word roughly meaning ‘barbarian’
  3. The region around Taxila
 
Last edited:
The eastern frontier of the Argead Empire holds! But for how long, one wonders.
By and large it seems the Persians supported the Argead regime, and the rather sad revolt of Baryaxes is often seen as the last attempt at fomenting some kind of Persian resistance against the Macedonians
This at minimum implies that the Argead state manages to hold onto Persia, and presumably with it Anatolia and the Levant, for at least a significant duration of the Macedonian empire's lifetime. Suffice to say, looks like Alexander's cultural syncretism programs have time to work.
For later generations of Argead rulers the battle would become a legendary one, with Alexander and a few companions holding back a million Indians with contemptuous ease, but for them too it was a reminder of a time when
When, in the end, a ruler united both the Indus and the Ganges in a single empire it was not from Pataliputra that he marched forth but from Taxila.
Very interesting implications for India's future from these snippets. It is looking like the Argeads will probably struggle to hold onto the Indus basin, and moreover that some Indian force large enough to rival them consistently throughout the empire's lifespan will emerge.

Given the mentions of how big Poros' domains are I would place bets on him founding this implied long-lasting Indian empire (potentially using his learnings on Argead, and by extension Achaemenid, statecraft to use in administering the subcontinent). If we assume Alexander marches on the Ganges after going about whatever he's doing in Italy, and his life presumably not continuing for long after that given his advancing age, the succession crisis seems like the perfect opportunity for Poros to make his move.
It was early in 309 that Alexander went west again, and not long after he must have heard about the situation in Italy.
Argead intervention in the Samnite Wars incoming? Perhaps he will make good (or attempt to) on his claims of suzerainty over the Romans and Samnites...
 
Possibly. Argead royal ideology and conceptions of themselves would obviously be vastly different from those of the Seleucids, who never ruled their original homeland Hellas and Macedonia. Also, how will you solve the issue of Macedonian succession and court politics?
For now there isn't much to solve, Alexander has a heir who is almost an adult, who through his mother is an descendant of the Achaemenids and who will most probably be supported by the army. Off course that doesn't mean that all future succession wil be so smoot.
Finally read this timeline after putting it off for quite a while. Truly one of the most detailed stories for an epic saga like the Antiquity period and definitely deserves a Turtledove nomination, that's for sure.

Shorter updates are certainly more welcome. The first posts of the timeline were so long that they were a slog to read, so being able to read smaller posts is a good thing, imo.

Alexander conquering Gaul is practically ASB, no doubt about it. The logistics and positioning of his Empire simply wouldn't support that sort of endeavor, although I would be interested in seeing such a massive empire have an influence on a region so far removed from its presence simply due to its size. Greek/Carthaginian coins and items being common in Gaulish villages would be a possibility in that case.

Carthage expanding into southern Gaul is more likely, although probably less than Iberia or Africa.
Thanks for the compliment! Always great to have another reader.

Argead power projection in the Western Mediterranean, including southern Gaul and possibly even bits of Iberia, is technically possible in one way: establishing an overlordship of some kind over the Western Greek city states such as Massalia and Emporion. This isn't especially likely in and of itself given the current state of Carthage's naval primacy in the Western Mediterranean, but given the Argeads' pan-Hellenic tendencies and the prominence of those cities I can see it as a slight possibility.

What is certain is that their power projection would end at the coast - there simply isn't the logistical backbone or motive for the Argeads to spend so much blood and treasure on securing those regions inland. Influence of any sort is a different story, and indeed I'd say Greek influence on Gaulish civilization is likely to be decently high simply by nature of trade; should the Argeads somehow get a toehold in Massalia, goods and coin would most certainly spread up the Rhone and into the hinterland.
Yes something like that was also what I had in mind, nominal subjugation of Massalia but not much more.

You know something I've been noticing, it seems, to me at least, the term 'Asia' has been primarily used to refer to the realm of the Achaemenid Empire and the Argead Empire as if it's a continuation of a "nation" or concept instead of it's use in OTL for the continent of Asia. Does that imply that the areas of the Argead and Achaemenid Empires are going to end up with a history of dynastic unity similar to that of China IOTL?

With the term for that Realm being Asia, which probably means the Continent of Asia will have a different name from OTL, or be concieved differently.
These insights are mostly correct, although the realm itself is (for now) never been refered to as Asia, which may change in the future however.

To contribute to the conversation, the historiography of the Middle East should be interesting. Macedon, a Greek kingdom, can assumed control of the Near East and its dynasts seem to be hinted to rule it for an extended period of time. Perhaps Greece ITTL would be viewed as an Asian or Near Eastern civilization as opposed to an European one.
Interesting insights! The Argead Empire will certainly be seen as a continuation of the Achaemenids, and whoever comes after might want to insert themselves into the same tradition. If Greece itself will be seen as part of the same civilization depends on if it stays part of the Near Eastern empire.

This is actually something, or similar to something, I had thought about on my own recently - the idea of continents being conceptualized differently in allohistorical geography due to differences in the geopolitical element of it (which is subtle, but exists). Of all the potential alternate continents, "Asia" comprising the area commonly referred to as the Middle or Near East OTL made the most sense, as it has a large number of obvious geographical borders with other continents:
  • The Hellespont, Caucasus Mountains, and Caspian/Hyrcanian Sea with Europe.
  • The Isthmus of Suez with Africa.
  • The Hindu Kush with *Asia, if India is considered part of that continent; alternatively, if India is part of allohistorical Asia, the Himalayas and either the Arakan or Hengduan range as the subcontinent's borders with *Asia.
  • Depending on cultural barriers, the Elburz Mountains or a range further north with Central *Asia.
A similar note is that, unless some Italic civilization (not even necessarily Rome) does the unlikely and rises to dominate the Mediterranean ITTL, the continent we call Africa will probably have a substantially different common name. Libya seems the most likely one if we take the Hellenic civilization(s) of the Mediterranean to have a similar role of prominence in place name primacy as the Romans of OTL.
Libya does make sense, even for the Egyptians who placed the 'Libu' to their west.

I think that would be a possibility if Alexander's cultural fusion programs are successful ITTL. Helleno-Persian culture would probably dominate the lands of Asia in the Argead Empire but I doubt that the Hellenic League or Macedon would be very happy at the courting and eventual embracing of "eastern" practices, so they will have to be imposed upon by force if that is the case.

Rome and Eturia should also be very interesting with the rise of this fusion culture too since they might continue to preserve their old Greek practices while resisting the influence of this fusion culture as well, possibly ending the notion of Greco-Roman civilization for good.
The Greeks and Macedonians won't be eager to adapt a more eastern culture, which might cause problems for the cohesion of the empire later on.

This was actually the case IOTL in Ancient Egypt, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Romans used similar naming...
I'm pretty sure that for the Romans Asia referred to Western Anatolia, at least during the Late Republic. Might have changed later on though.

I wouldnt be suprised if the Romans still become powerful ittl. They should still be able to take all of central italy, this was the era of the sammite wars. This would also allow them to focus elsewhere like Gaul or Hispania instead if the east. They may not be as rich, but if they worked with the Macedonians, they could have a powerful trading partner.
I doubt the Romans would expand into Gaul if they can't even unite Italy.

Oh, and when will the butterflies reach China? I understand that contacts with Greco-Bactria didn't happen until the 230s BC, but things are definitely going to be different, that's for sure.
No ideas for China yet.

It does make sense that Asia in this timeline gets conceptualized as more or less what we see as the Asian parts of the Middle East. However, I can still see a mediterranean regional concept and identity being a prominent thing, especially if the Greek and Phoenician cities and statelets end up more and more opposing and differentiating themselves from Persian influences should those continue to seep into basis of the Argead regime.

What the Mediterranean sea and region ends up called by the Greeks is a question in and of itself though. Mesogaian?
Mesogeian makes sense, although I hope readers forgive me if sometimes I still use Mediterranean.
 
When, in the end, a ruler united both the Indus and the Ganges in a single empire it was not from Pataliputra that he marched forth but from Taxila.
Welp, there goes both the Nanda and Maurya Empires since Chandragupta, Shiryaka, and Pabbata are now dead. However, I will await the possibility of Poros and his dynasty breaking free of the Argeads and reunite the old Nanda Empire in due time, perhaps reshaping it in a Hellenized image similar to the Indo-Greek Kingdom now lost to the butterflies.

Argead intervention in the Samnite Wars incoming? Perhaps he will make good (or attempt to) on his claims of suzerainty over the Romans and Samnites...
I think he will find more success in the Samnite Wars than what happened in Sicily, especially if he manages to convince the Samnites to support his suzerainty in favor of crushing the Romans and take all of Campania for them, if that wasn't done already.
 
The Greeks and Macedonians won't be eager to adapt a more eastern culture, which might cause problems for the cohesion of the empire later on.
Maybe the Argead Empire will split into a more purely Greek western empire in Greece and Anatolia, and an eastern one in Mesopotamia, Persia and whichever other regions stay under Argead control?
 
Or the Macedonian and Greek parts may at some point try to break free of the Empire, or the ineviteable dynastic successor, which is probably when the fate of Macedonia and Greece becoming generally considered what we consider a Middle or Near Eastern civilization or what we consider a European civilization is decided.

After an extended period of increasing strife as the Argeads probably become increasingly persianized, or Helleno-Persian in culture.
 
Last edited:
My guess here is that the Romans are fighting Etruscans and the Samnites. Rome is an ally, so the Samnites are probably causing trouble again. I'm thinking they probably are dominating the Lucanians and Brutii since Alexander softened them up a decade ago. And then there's Etruscan's who probably want to hem the Romans in.

BTW, I am kind of curious about whatever happened to the Mercenaries Agathocles left behind.
 
Maybe the Argead Empire will split into a more purely Greek western empire in Greece and Anatolia, and an eastern one in Mesopotamia, Persia and whichever other regions stay under Argead control?
There is no way that the Argeads will allow a loss of their control of their homeland and an extremely valuable source of manpower and settlers.
 
Welp, there goes both the Nanda and Maurya Empires since Chandragupta, Shiryaka, and Pabbata are now dead. However, I will await the possibility of Poros and his dynasty breaking free of the Argeads and reunite the old Nanda Empire in due time, perhaps reshaping it in a Hellenized image similar to the Indo-Greek Kingdom now lost to the butterflies.
To me it seemed that a more successful Alexander and no Chandragupta it would be a plausible alternative. I'm certainly not an expert on Indian history though, I just hope it isn't too implausible, it's also still some decades away.
I think he will find more success in the Samnite Wars than what happened in Sicily, especially if he manages to convince the Samnites to support his suzerainty in favor of crushing the Romans and take all of Campania for them, if that wasn't done already.
My guess here is that the Romans are fighting Etruscans and the Samnites. Rome is an ally, so the Samnites are probably causing trouble again. I'm thinking they probably are dominating the Lucanians and Brutii since Alexander softened them up a decade ago. And then there's Etruscan's who probably want to hem the Romans in.
Without spoiling too much: Orisha is more or less right.
BTW, I am kind of curious about whatever happened to the Mercenaries Agathocles left behind.
I'm pretty sure I mentioned at the end of update 22 that Alexander defeated them before returning to Macedon.
Maybe the Argead Empire will split into a more purely Greek western empire in Greece and Anatolia, and an eastern one in Mesopotamia, Persia and whichever other regions stay under Argead control?
Or the Macedonian and Greek parts may at some point try to break free of the Empire, or the ineviteable dynastic successor, which is probably when the fate of Macedonia and Greece becoming generally considered what we consider a Middle or Near Eastern civilization or what we consider a European civilization is decided.

After an extended period of increasing strife as the Argeads probably become increasingly persianized, or Helleno-Persian in culture.
There is no way that the Argeads will allow a loss of their control of their homeland and an extremely valuable source of manpower and settlers.
Obviously the Argead Empire isn't gonna exist forever, and at some point it's gonna lose territory one way or another. That's still some time away though, it hasn't even reached it's maximum extent yet. And even when the decline starts it won't be even-handed, territory that has been lost can be regained and it won't collapse overnight. They'll of course do their utmost to hold onto Macedon, as it's the dynasty's homeland, but as time passes it's I guess more or less inevitable that the richer eastern provinces become more prominent.
 
Obviously the Argead Empire isn't gonna exist forever, and at some point it's gonna lose territory one way or another. That's still some time away though, it hasn't even reached it's maximum extent yet. And even when the decline starts it won't be even-handed, territory that has been lost can be regained and it won't collapse overnight. They'll of course do their utmost to hold onto Macedon, as it's the dynasty's homeland, but as time passes it's I guess more or less inevitable that the richer eastern provinces become more prominent.
Macedonia is in a complicated situation in the Argead Empire. It's the Empire's homeland, a major source of soldiers and the center of culture for the Macedonian elite, but geographically Macedonia is a relative periphery and it's not the wealthiest or most populous province in the Empire.
 
To me it seemed that a more successful Alexander and no Chandragupta it would be a plausible alternative. I'm certainly not an expert on Indian history though, I just hope it isn't too implausible, it's also still some decades away.
I think it's a very plausible alternative to OTL India's development, with Poros's kingdom primed to reunite India in the same manner as Chandragrputa Maurya, albeit bringing a more Hellenistic flavor to the entire subcontinent. Should be interesting to see where this goes both politically and culturally.
 
Macedonia is in a complicated situation in the Argead Empire. It's the Empire's homeland, a major source of soldiers and the center of culture for the Macedonian elite, but geographically Macedonia is a relative periphery and it's not the wealthiest or most populous province in the Empire.
I imagine the Argeads themselves would be keen on holding Macedon... But if the Asian realm were to fall under the control of another dynasty with looser ties to Macedonian heritage, then that's a different story.
 
Top