No Alexander

What would be the consequences if Alexander the Great died at a young age or didn't exist. Let's say a POD of him falling and breaking his neck at age 13 riding Bucephalus, being unable to tame it. What would happen?
 
Probably. From what I know, Philip II of Macedon also had plans to invade Persia and considering his military prowess, I have no doubt he'd do well against a moron like Darius III. However, I think Philip might be more sensible and less exaggerating than Alexander who had almost turned Persian by the end of his life. I doubt he'd alienate his entire surrounding by adopting Persian court rules and having his generals marry Persian wives.

Also, IOTL Darius offered half his empire to Alexander at one point and if Philip is as successful as his son was, Darius will the do the same here. Philip, unlike Alexander, might accept the offer if only to consolidate his gains. This gives him Egypt, the Levant, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor and the Caucasus region which are the most important parts of the Persian Empire anyway.

Once he has consolidated he could finish the job or turn to Arabia or perhaps Carthage.
 
Also, IOTL Darius offered half his empire to Alexander at one point and if Philip is as successful as his son was, Darius will the do the same here. Philip, unlike Alexander, might accept the offer if only to consolidate his gains. This gives him Egypt, the Levant, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor and the Caucasus region which are the most important parts of the Persian Empire anyway.

No, he won't accept the offer. Philip had been building up the coming war against Persia as a War of Revenge for the burning of Athens and the atrocities (real and imagined) committed by Persia during its invasion of Greece. He's not going to stop until Darius is dead and he's sitting on the throne of the King of Kings in Persepolis itself. And he probably, like Alex did, destroys Persepolis in retaliation for the burning of Athens.

What Philip probably won't feel the need to do is to advance farther east. No crossing of the Indus or campaigns in India. Instead, after consolidating his control of Persia, he most likely returns to Macedon, where he lives out his remaining years enjoying the fruits of his labors, occasionally putting down the odd rebellion here and there.

With no Alexander, however, when Philip dies, then the idiot child Philip Arrhidaeus succeeds to the throne when Philip II dies (assuming, of course, no other heirs have been produced). The various generals take advantage of his weakness as in OTL, and something like the OTL Wars of the Diadochi is the result, possibly with different players (Philip's generals may not all be the same men who served Alexander).
 
To me it seems that you're all assuming that Pausanias of Orestis doesn't assassinate Philip.

Even if he wasn't assassinated, you also have to remember that it took 12 years for Alexander to conquer the Persian Empire; Philip at this point is 46. 12 years for him would put Philip at 58 at the end of his campaign which is pretty old for this time.

If however, he does go on to conquer Persia, I'd imagine that Robertp6165 is right.
 
To me it seems that you're all assuming that Pausanias of Orestis doesn't assassinate Philip.

I've always considered it likely that Olympias had something to do with that, seeking to protect Alexander from possible replacement by an heir borne of his latest wife. If Alexander is removed from the picture, no real reason for the assassination to occur.

Even if he wasn't assassinated, you also have to remember that it took 12 years for Alexander to conquer the Persian Empire; Philip at this point is 46. 12 years for him would put Philip at 58 at the end of his campaign which is pretty old for this time.

Well, yes and no. We read the descriptions of the shorter lifespans of earlier times and we often get the erroneous impression that the "average lifespan" of the time is some sort of upper limit on how long people could live. That is not really true. The "average life span" of the whole population may have been something less that 40 years. But those figures are skewed by 1) high infant mortality rates which are included in the "average life span" calculations, and 2) class-based and economically-based differences in the death rate of lower class/poor people versus upper class/rich people (poor people and lower class people tended to have poor nutrition which killed them off at an earlier age. Higher status persons ate better and generally lived longer). Since there were many more lower class/poor people, the fact that they have a higher death rate means the "average" life expectancy is lowered.

As an adult and an upper class/wealthy person, Philip could expect to live much longer than the average. Wealthy people...unless killed violently or dying of a plague or something like that...tended to live about as long in ancient times as we do today.
 
Last edited:
Even if he wasn't assassinated, you also have to remember that it took 12 years for Alexander to conquer the Persian Empire; Philip at this point is 46. 12 years for him would put Philip at 58 at the end of his campaign which is pretty old for this time.

The Diadochi all lived quite long however:

Ptolemy lived to 84
Lysimachus to 81 (killed in battle)
Antigonus to 81 (also killed in battle)
Seleucos to 77 (assassinated)

Battling till his sixtieth birthday sounds doable for Philips. In fact, he was born in the same year as Antigonus.
 
Kings had extra lifespan problems, like, hmm, not just Phil II, but even his successor Al III. Hmmm... And, being an evil emperor will cut down your lifespan even more.

Yeah, it could be Olympias, but, there are at least as many possibilities as were seen right after JFK's death. And, why not sooner? It's also possible he might've been assassinated earlier still with a different heir.
 

Giladis

Banned
Also Perzepolis was conquered in 330.

That would make Philip 52 at the moment he brought down the Persian Empire.

A much more interesting situation is what happens if Alexander dies as a child and Philip is still assassinaded.

Would that make the Greek citystates rebell against the "barbarians" from the north.
 
If the Macedonains/Greeks don't unite, the Persian Empire would probably live on until the Mauryans...

Suppose Macedonia would invade Persia at the same time the Mauryans do? And meet halfway in Babylon? :cool:
 
I've always considered it likely that Olympias had something to do with that, seeking to protect Alexander from possible replacement by an heir borne of his latest wife. If Alexander is removed from the picture, no real reason for the assassination to occur.



Well, yes and no. We read the descriptions of the shorter lifespans of earlier times and we often get the erroneous impression that the "average lifespan" of the time is some sort of upper limit on how long people could live. That is not really true. The "average life span" of the whole population may have been something less that 40 years. But those figures are skewed by 1) high infant mortality rates which are included in the "average life span" calculations, and 2) class-based and economically-based differences in the death rate of lower class/poor people versus upper class/rich people (poor people and lower class people tended to have poor nutrition which killed them off at an earlier age. Higher status persons ate better and generally lived longer). Since there were many more lower class/poor people, the fact that they have a higher death rate means the "average" life expectancy is lowered.

As an adult and an upper class/wealthy person, Philip could expect to live much longer than the average. Wealthy people...unless killed violently or dying of a plague or something like that...tended to live about as long in ancient times as we do today.

The Diadochi all lived quite long however:

Ptolemy lived to 84
Lysimachus to 81 (killed in battle)
Antigonus to 81 (also killed in battle)
Seleucos to 77 (assassinated)

Battling till his sixtieth birthday sounds doable for Philips. In fact, he was born in the same year as Antigonus.

OK, points taken about his age.

On the assassination
I've always considered it more as a I'm jealous that my lover (as in Pausanius to Philip) likes someone else and not me anymore thing, but it can definitely be seen like that as well. I was just wondering why you seemed to be leaving that out.
 
Bump, but with a slight change: What happens if Pausanias of Orestis still kills Philip of Macedon? Barbarian Invasions? Longer Theban Hegemony, maybe?
 
Top