Phillip II Invades Persia

So I always thought about how the invasion of Persia would go differently had Phillip invaded rather than Alexander (lets assume he doesn't get assassinated until after he finishes his war, since it seems like he was pretty much destined to be assassinated at some point). I feel he certainly has the military ability to go as far as Alexander did, but the foolhardiness or boldness to do it, given the enormous risks involved. An interesting thought would be if, assuming he achieved a level of success early on similar to Alexander, he accepted a similar proposal from Darius that Alexander turned down: all territory east of the Euphrates a very large payment, and marriage to Darius' daughter. That would seem like something he'd be willing to accept.

Alternatively, I could only see the maximum extent he'd be willing to go being Ekbatana and Susa (and possibly Persepolis). There wouldn't be much reason for him to chase Darius and Bessus into the desolate mountains of Baktria and Sogdiana (and there wasn't really for Alexander other than to claim more territory and try and capture Darius and usurp his throne), and it would make more sense to consolidate by that point at the latest.

What do you guys think?
 
I feel he certainly has the military ability to go as far as Alexander did, but the foolhardiness or boldness to do it, given the enormous risks involved.
Alexander was already associated with Philipp II's campaigns that said : for instance, his son managed to break Theban lines before the king attacked on its own, and Alexander played no small part on the victory.

I assume that he would be part of the expedition in Persia, and you'd have much of what Alexander did IOTL.

An interesting thought would be if, assuming he achieved a level of success early on similar to Alexander, he accepted a similar proposal from Darius that Alexander turned down: all territory east of the Euphrates a very large payment, and marriage to Darius' daughter. That would seem like something he'd be willing to accept.
In fact, Philipp II could have a better rap on taking on Eastern Mediterranean basin. Alexander did had troubles to be really obeyed by ligued cities, and these didn't furnished nearly enough boats, making ravitail and conquest of Syria/Palestine a bit hard.

I could see Philipp being more...convincing on these matters, and eventually he may be as bold than his son considering that if Persia loose half of his kingdom in two decivise battles, he would try to push his advantage (while maybe not trying to conquer all the road up to Asia).

For the marriage, I doubt it unless he want to piss of Macedonian and his son. With a clear heir already in presence, such royal marriage could have threatened Alexander position, with a possible offspring.
 
Alexander was already associated with Philipp II's campaigns that said : for instance, his son managed to break Theban lines before the king attacked on its own, and Alexander played no small part on the victory.

I assume that he would be part of the expedition in Persia, and you'd have much of what Alexander did IOTL.
HOw much influence over his father's decisions would Alexander have though? Surely he'd be in an important command and I'd wager would get some independent commands no doubt, but would he have enough influence to convince Phillip to go further than he may want?

In fact, Philipp II could have a better rap on taking on Eastern Mediterranean basin. Alexander did had troubles to be really obeyed by ligued cities, and these didn't furnished nearly enough boats, making ravitail and conquest of Syria/Palestine a bit hard.

I could see Philipp being more...convincing on these matters, and eventually he may be as bold than his son considering that if Persia loose half of his kingdom in two decivise battles, he would try to push his advantage (while maybe not trying to conquer all the road up to Asia).
That is true-so up to Ekbatana and Susa seems the most likely?

For the marriage, I doubt it unless he want to piss of Macedonian and his son. With a clear heir already in presence, such royal marriage could have threatened Alexander position, with a possible offspring.
Didn't think of that. Phillip seems to have been a crafty enough politician to know the dangers that could bring.
 
Surely he'd be in an important command and I'd wager would get some independent commands no doubt, but would he have enough influence to convince Phillip to go further than he may want?
Seeing that Philipp trusted Alexander with quite important decisions and role, I would say that he'll trust him enough at least regarding tactical and operational matters.
I don't think he'll allow him or his army to go hunt the wild goose in India or Afghanistan, but apart from that, I think he'll have a certain influence.

That is true-so up to Ekbatana and Susa seems the most likely?
I tend to think so, but that's gut feeling more than educated guess.
 

Dirk

Banned
I thought that Philip's planned campaign was mostly to free the Greek cities of Asia from Achaemenid rule, thoroughly thrash and humiliate the Persians, and earn the loyalty and admiration of the petulant and resentful Greek city-states?

I know you're something of an expert, LSCatilina, but are you sure that Philip would accept such a proposal that would far overextend his rule and basically not make any sense?
 
are you sure that Philip would accept such a proposal that would far overextend his rule and basically not make any sense?

Well, it's not "my" era, so I can be largely wrong. But Philipp never really bited the hand who whom feed him (or actually, largely continued to do so, if it was useful).

First, we're talking of a warrior king, at the same extent than Alexander. I assume that he, as his son, would see favour of arms as a sign he could reach more.

Then, the assumed goal of "freeing the greek cities" wasn' really made by Philipp, but more by his greek "allies" within the league, as Isocrate. While it may be a good pretext, I'm not sure Philipp would feel bound by that and return home afterwards, critically with the necessity to make a point against Persia (crushing their armies badly in order to prevent a reconquest, maybe up to creating marches or rear alliances).

Thing is, we're talking of an imperial structure : in order to reduce efficiently Persian threat, Macedonians had to strike at the core of Persia. And if able to reach this point, you may as well try to take it all.
 
I agree with LSCatalina a bit here: the freeing of the Ionian Greek cities was the stated goal of the expedition, but it was nothing more than a convenient pretext to rally the Greek cities behind him. It was the stated goal of Alexander's expedition to, and at least until he entered Syria, he was still leading the army as the head of the Corinthian League and not as King of Macedon (I believe that's also when he dismissed his League troops).
 
But there is a difference between sacking Susa Ectbatana and Perseopolis and actually holding them.

Assuming Phillip / Alexander actually capture the Persian treasuries intact I would suggest that ruling the Med litorial would be the primary goal of the alt-Macedonian invasion. I suspect that this would include Egypt as Egypt had been an area where Greeks had had contact / meddled before.

I can't see the Achmaenids coming back from the sacking of their capitals except in the sense of Parthia vs Rome - annoying but not really Empire threatening.

Could definately see the super rich Phillip targetting Carthage and possibly Rome as follow on targets rather than the wastes of Bactria and the Indus valley.
 
Damn, I thought this was going to be Philip II of Spain! I was looking forward to the discussion...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Could definately see the super rich Phillip targetting Carthage and possibly Rome as follow on targets rather than the wastes of Bactria and the Indus valley.

Doubt it. He may be more inclined to do the consolidation Alexander didn't do (Looking at Anatolia, which was just a mess after Alexander's death).
 
Here's something else to consider: Would Phillip be willing to engage in a Guagamela esque battle? Alexander ran a lot of risks engaging and his generals weren't too happy about facing a much larger Persian force on a wide open plain.
 
Likewise Bactria was urbanised, rich, and extensive agriculture was made possible by the large oases in the region and extensive use of irrigation canals. Bactria was not a poverty stricken region or a backwater.
 
Here's something else to consider: Would Phillip be willing to engage in a Guagamela esque battle? Alexander ran a lot of risks engaging and his generals weren't too happy about facing a much larger Persian force on a wide open plain.
I think Phillip might be more likely to fight "dishonorably".
 
For the marriage, I doubt it unless he want to piss of Macedonian and his son. With a clear heir already in presence, such royal marriage could have threatened Alexander position, with a possible offspring.

A better option could be to arrange a marriage between Alexander and a Persian princess. That way, there's a marriage to seal the peace but it doesn't mess with Macedonia's established order of succession.
 
Alexander succeeding later changes the subsequent succession, but not in a wholly predictable way. He's likely to marry before he succeeds (likely an Epirot or another Macedonian) and may live long enough to have an adult successor.

Some reason will eventually arise which will give Alexander an excuse to invade the rump Persian Empire. So long as he survives the campaign, he will win.
 
I think Phillip might be more likely to fight "dishonorably".

Well, yes, I can see that. The problem is putting himself in a situation where he's up against a far larger Persian army on a wide open plain: Remember, Alexander's generals, specifically Parmenion, were keen on accepting peace terms similar to those which Darius was offering, which was why he had to hide the offer from them. Phillip was much more calculating and I assume much more interested in what his co-commanders had to say, than Alexander ever would be.
 
Top