No Philip of Macedon

Hello everyone! I am new to the forum here, but I have been lurking for quite awhile. I’m an aspiring writer, and I’ve loved alternate history for years, and I finally decided I would join and get some feedback on my writing!


Anyways, I have been working on a timeline these passed few weeks on a world where Philip of Macedon was killed in the Battle of Erigon Valley, and I was interested in getting you guys’ thoughts on what the repercussions both short and long term of that might be? I already have quite a few ideas, since I have been reading about it tirelessly, but yeah...


Obviously this would alter Aegean politics pretty significantly at a very volatile time. The battle in question took place in 358, right before the outbreak of the Social War and the Third Sacred War. Without Philip there, is a Phocian/Athenian/Spartan victory imminent? Or do you guys think that other devout Greeks might get involved to avenge the plundering of Apollo’s sanctuary at Delphi, leading to a situation in which Greece is so torn apart by internal conflict that it is ripe for the taking by some outside power?
 
Welcome to the forum!
I would advise that you wait at least a day before bumping a thread.

Now,
I would say that the Greeks would capture at least western Anatolia from the Achaemenid Persians, sooner or later. Greeks and Persians were already quite close, as evidenced by the participation of a Greek mercenary contingent in an Achaemenid Persian civil war. The Greek state most likely to make such conquest is still a guess to me, but if i were to guess, then i'd pick Thebes, considering its good military and political performance up to that point and its useful military reforms made by commander Epaminondas. I think one polis would have still assumed hegemony over Greece even if Philip II never went south.
There is also the probability of an Egyptian revolt. If it happens, then expect the Greeks to lend a hand, but not become the ruling class as IOTL.
I, however, can see the Achaemenids surviving as a stable state east of Cappadocia, or reforming. This could have butterflies east in India, considering that Alexander's successors in the area, the Indo-Greeks, spread a lot of greek culture and knowlege to the subcontinent.
 
Last edited:
Welcome to the forum!
I would advise that you wait at least a day before bumping a thread.

Now,
I would say that the Greeks would capture at least western Anatolia from the Achaemenid Persians, sooner or later. Greeks and Persians were already quite close, as evidenced by the participation of a Greek mercenary contingent in an Achaemenid Persian civil war. The Greek state most likely to make such conquest is still a guess to me, but if i were to guess, then i'd pick Thebes, considering its good military and political performance up to that point and its useful military reforms made by commander Epaminondas. I think one polis would have still assumed hegemony over Greece even if Philip II never went south.
There is also the probability of an Egyptian revolt. If it happens, then expect the Greeks to lend a hand, but not become the ruling class as IOTL.
I, however, can see the Achaemenids surviving as a stable state east of Cappadocia, or reforming. This could have butterflies east in India, considering that Alexander's successors in the area, the Indo-Greeks, spread a lot of greek culture and knowlege to the subcontinent.


Thebes is likely to be gutted by the Third Sacred War, as the Thebans and Thessalian we’re losing very badly to the Phocian Confederacy before Philip got involved. So, if any one polis is going to take the cake in Greece, I would frankly be surprised if it were Thebes. What happens in Greece I would say hinges entirely on the outcome of the Third Sacred War, which... had all the makings of a conflict that could cripple the Eastern Greek poleis, in my opinion.


That said, without Philip to interfere, one has to wonder if the Amphictyonic League would not call a foreign power with interests in the region to intervene. However, this is a little bit dicey because the war in question was an explicitly Greek affair, and I’m not sure if there was historical precedent for Greeks to call foreign powers that didn’t worship the same gods to interfere in religious conflicts.


Mausolus, the King of Lycia, who backed anti-Athenian dissident states in the Social War, seems like an obvious candidate here, although I’m not sure that the Lycians can provide more than financial support to defeat the Phocians/Athenians/Spartans.


The Battle of Erigon Valley itself was fought between the Dardanians, who were occupying the Macedonian highlands, and the Macedonians themselves. A Dardanian victory would have made Lower Macedonia effectively a vassal state of Dardania... whatever that would have meant, since information about the Dardanians is extremely sparse. Might the Dardanians see reason to interfere in the Third Sacred War, and would their intervention be well received if they interevened on the side of the Amphictyons? Or would intervention from fellow Greeks, or the Persians, with whom Greek states had allied in the past, be preferred here?


Long term, without someone as reckless as Alexander, I would be very surprised to see a Hellenistic state beyond Anatolia, which certainly butterflies religious and artistic development in Central and East Asia considerably. I am not so familiar with the origins of Chandragupta Maurya. Without Alexander, are the Mauryans still a thing?
 
One of the most commonly accepted theories about the origin of the Maurya Empire is that Alexander's northwestern indian campaign upset the balance of power in the region (Porus' kingdom was annexed into the Macedonian Empire), allowing some room for the Mauryas to expand.
I think that, without Alexander and with the Persians still in comtrol of the Indus, the Mauryas would not come to power. Instead, we could see the Nanda and Magadha empires developing further, with the Persians possibly vying to keep both of them divided and at each other's throats.
 
One of the most commonly accepted theories about the origin of the Maurya Empire is that Alexander's northwestern indian campaign upset the balance of power in the region (Porus' kingdom was annexed into the Macedonian Empire), allowing some room for the Mauryas to expand.
I think that, without Alexander and with the Persians still in comtrol of the Indus, the Mauryas would not come to power. Instead, we could see the Nanda and Magadha empires developing further, with the Persians possibly vying to keep both of them divided and at each other's throats.


I’ll have to include that in my reading. I hadn’t heard that theory.


Now, a very interesting consequence of a lack of Greek prospects in the Middle East, at least in my mind, is the possibility of continued Greek expansion in the Western Mediterranean. Any thoughts on how that might look?
 
Now, a very interesting consequence of a lack of Greek prospects in the Middle East, at least in my mind, is the possibility of continued Greek expansion in the Western Mediterranean. Any thoughts on how that might look?
If we assume that Greece is united by a single hegemon who's still unable to expand beyond Cappadocia, then Magna Graecia (southern Italy) and Sicily will end up as probable targets, considering that they're mostly greek-speaking and right in the middle of the Mediterranean's trade routes.
I assume such greek expansion in Italy will play out mostly similar to this "failed Alexander" mini-TL:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/motf-128-to-the-victor.373232/#post-11669602
 
Realistically I think you have a chance of Bardylis and Cleitus establishing Dardania as a lasting power. With no other heir, you could have a sort of Illyrian Empire starting from Dardania. The city itself isn't the best as it is so inland, but AFAIK it was quite capable agriculturally. So perhaps it focuses on establishing its control over Macedonia - like Philip forcing urbanisation, but colonising Illyrians in Macedonia, and Macedonians in smaller parts in Illyrian territory.

Meanwhile the Achemenid Empire slowly collapses, and probably some Anatolian Greeks establish themselves as Hegemon of the Greeks in their stead, if anyone does. Meanwhile Illyria and Thrace duke it out repeatedly. If Macedonia isn't broken up, but IS urbanised, it could very well break away from Illyria, reactionarily embracing their Greekness all the more, and establishing a later Macedonian Kingdom, but already urbanised, and pissed off at Athens, Illyria, Thrace, and Paeonia.
 
Realistically I think you have a chance of Bardylis and Cleitus establishing Dardania as a lasting power. With no other heir, you could have a sort of Illyrian Empire starting from Dardania. The city itself isn't the best as it is so inland, but AFAIK it was quite capable agriculturally. So perhaps it focuses on establishing its control over Macedonia - like Philip forcing urbanisation, but colonising Illyrians in Macedonia, and Macedonians in smaller parts in Illyrian territory.

Meanwhile the Achemenid Empire slowly collapses, and probably some Anatolian Greeks establish themselves as Hegemon of the Greeks in their stead, if anyone does. Meanwhile Illyria and Thrace duke it out repeatedly. If Macedonia isn't broken up, but IS urbanised, it could very well break away from Illyria, reactionarily embracing their Greekness all the more, and establishing a later Macedonian Kingdom, but already urbanised, and pissed off at Athens, Illyria, Thrace, and Paeonia.


I am quite interested in this idea, frankly, as it allows for a good degree of artistic license, plus... idk. If the Dardanians are equivalent to the Proto-Albanians, it would certainly make for a very different and interesting world.


I am curious as to how you guys think the Achaemenids would collapse without a Philip/Alexander-like figure. I also think that the Greek mercenaries and Greek trading cities in Egypt are worth considering in terms of the fate of Egypt after it would probably break off from the Achaemenids...


If we assume that Greece is united by a single hegemon who's still unable to expand beyond Cappadocia, then Magna Graecia (southern Italy) and Sicily will end up as probable targets, considering that they're mostly greek-speaking and right in the middle of the Mediterranean's trade routes.
I assume such greek expansion in Italy will play out mostly similar to this "failed Alexander" mini-TL:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/motf-128-to-the-victor.373232/#post-11669602


I am not familiar with this timeline, I’ll give it a look. I think the idea of an expanding Dardanian state and some kind of a Greek hegemon in Italy could make for an interesting read.
 
Top