Post Alexandrian Ecumene dark ages

So, say Alexander the Great lives longer, finishes his plans to take over Arabia Felix and Carthage, and maybe, with new Persian troops, takes another crack at India and he at least gets some more of it, depending on whether Chandragupta, his unwitting protege, is his opponent for round 2. His sons grow of age and he has at least one competent one, and the Persian-Greek cultural merger he was imposing and the colonies he planted have more time to establish. His empire becomes the dominant empire of the ancient world rather than Rome, and lasts for some time until it collapses.

In this much delayed "to the strongest" scenario, say around 200 CE, what does this dark age look like? Considering much of its in Asia, steppe nomads would probably play a large role, Scythians, Huns, etc. I think with a less influential Rome, the Celts stay stronger and may be the ones sacking the Greek cities. Christianity would be probably butterflied, so maybe Buddhism or Zoroastrianism becomes the dominant religion in whatever Diadochi or barbarian successor states arise. Maybe a merely conquered and Hellenized Carthage makes a comeback without Rome razing it.
 
Most people believe that the Roman legion was very much superior to the Greek and Macedonian phalanx, and OTL history seems to prove that. So It sems rather important to break Roman power as early as possible, perhaps even by Alexander himself. After all, during OTL's Pyrrhic War, Rome allied with Carthage, so there might be a constallation that leads to Macedonia+Syracuse against Carthage+Rome and the Greek side defeating and taming them both.
Hm, Alexandria-on-the-Tiber, tp protect the Hellenes of Campania from Tuscan resurgence? Or would it be Pallantion in Italy (a ssopposed to the older on in Arcadia)?
 
Most people believe that the Roman legion was very much superior to the Greek and Macedonian phalanx, and OTL history seems to prove that. So It sems rather important to break Roman power as early as possible, perhaps even by Alexander himself.

Rome did not start conquering Italy with Legions. Their first armies used the phalanx tactics like most other city states, until the manipular flexibility of the Samnites showed them how awful their old Hellenic (not Macedonian) style phalanx tactics were. They adopted the manipular system after Alexander had conquered most of the Persian Empire.

Second the Romans never actually fought against an Alexandrian Macedonian Phalanx were the sarrisas held the centre, the Hypapists held the flanks of the Phalanx and the cavalry waited at their flanks to flank the opposition.

After Alexanders death the Successors did away with the Hypapists gradually and concentrated on the strong phalanx when their wars became Phalanx against Phalanx and not seeing how useful a strong flexible infantry unit were until they came upon the Romans.

Many of the battles held up as triumphs of the Legion over the Phalanx such as Pydna or Magnesia are actually examples of how you should never use a Phalanx.

At Pydna the Phalanx army had split in half to march down to meet the Romans from their rocky high ground. You never divide a phalanx. Its unbroken wall of sarrissas are to keep the enemy from breaking your line. Even the Roman general was quoted to have said "Anyone who says they saw that wall of spears approach and did not break out a cold sweat is a liar."

At Magnesia the strong central hammer of the Phalanx was again broken by Antiochus' love of elephants. Hannibal must have pulling his hair out watching it play out. Once again you never divide a phalanx.

If you are holding Pyrrhus up as the reason a Phalanx would never win against Rome...he lost most of his army in a storm crossing over from Hellas and still he fought the Romans to within a few hundred miles of their capital. They were on the verge of surrendering to him before a speech from an old blind Senator steeled their resolve to "Never submit to Kings!"

Imagine what Alexander would do in comparison with his immense Empire to the pathetically tiny kingdom of Epirus achieved. Heck Antigonas Monothalmus would probably take Italy given he was a far superior general.


To get back to the original OP.

Rome (and much of northern Itlay) would likely be a ruin, destroyed by the Cimbri and Teutones and subsequent barbarian migrations.
The Adriatic Sea would be a haven for pirates scuttling between the Dalmatian isles, the likes of Teuta of Illyria, Kleomynus and a a guy during the Social war of Italy called Agamemnon.

Before Pyrrhus went to Rome a violent Spartan prince called Kleomynus* was exiled for his abusive and horrific outbursts of rage against his family and fellow citizens. He became a rather nasty pirate lord in the Adriatic Sea demanding hundreds of virgin girls and boys as tribute from cities that he constantly attacked. Imagine a Spartan descended Pirate kingdom among the Dalmatians harassing shipping and generally being a nuisance for centuries with no strong power to stamp it out.

Southern Gaul would likely be under the control of the Arverni God Kings, who were on the rise before Rome broke their power and allied with their rivals the Aeudi Confederation. Spain would have been split between various tribes but perhaps the several Carthaginian cities would likely become centred around their new capital of Gades on the Pillars of Heracles and begin to spread outwards.

With the invasion of Barbarians from the steppes the Dacians and other Danube dwelling barbarians would be fleeing from the steppe Hordes into the Mediterranean, bringing with them the word of their One god Zalmoxis and his Belagines (the Beautiful Laws) by which they live. Perhaps their priests could find willing followers among the Hellenics and other barbarians.

The Huns would concentrate on invading the Middle East were all the Imperial wealth is located, through the Caucasus, as the Scythians had done before them (getting all the way to Israel). The huns had invaded the middle east just before Attila came to the forefront. Likely if there is one huge Empire sprawling across three continents it will be hard to defend, especially if it collapses under infighting as it would more than likely.

Carthage would continue to be trade hub between the East and West Med raking in money without a pesky Empire to uphold. Perhaps the waning Imperial authority would cause it to break away again.

Hellas would be an irrelevance, a ghost of a civilisation. As the Macedonian authorities demand more and more settlers (there are only so many Macedonians) to create their colonies in the East , the citizenry would drain and the once great theatres and agoras of Athens and Pella would be almost empty as people leave for a better life in the East.

*Kleomynus rather than Kleomenes.
 
Last edited:
Interesting.

I figured Alexander's immediate successors would be the ones to fight Rome. Maybe getting into something with Epirus, which would be an Alexandrian vassal. Looking for something to conquer to show they're as good as dad/granddad.

I figured also some kind of second go at India which gets a little further than last time before hitting Chandragupta as a foe and a stalemate settled with an exchange of war elephants or something. That's what they did when they had draws with the Seleucids OTL.

I also assume there'd be ambitious generals revolting and religious tensions between Greek pantheon worshippers, Egyptian pantheon worshippers, Zoroastrians and Indian religions, not just Buddhism.

I've never heard of this renegade Spartan exile turned pirate, but it sounds like something a disgruntled Spartan would do. I'll look him up.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
1) I imagine Philip-worship would become influential, or a new Pharonic System, essentially a merger of Egyptian, Hellenic and Zoroastrian Faiths, where you have "Saintly Kings" and a parallel of Hinduism where all the Gods and Kings are part of Ahura Mazda. Either that, or the empire would have to maintain a great tolerance of faith - which I like.

2) Gordius has it right here, the Argeads were MASTERS of Phalanx warfare, considering they revolutionized it into a masterpiece of mixed arms warfare. Personally, if they came across the Samnites in a war in Italy, I'd be very surprised if manipular units weren't included in the Macedonian war machine. They'd be fantastic assault troops, and could very well replace/complement the Hypapists by having as many again behind the Hypapists to engulf the enemy from behind. Think hammer and anvil, where the anvil can use manipular units to "hold on/brutalise the flanks/rear of an enemy force.

I say this because if anything, the Argeads had learnt that military innovation changes EVERYTHING. It is the reason they were a powerhouse.

3) I'd not be able to say what came after the empire though, it could get so absurdly large that it splinters into successor kingdoms, or overrun by Celts/Germans. But considering that most of the expansion will likely be ruled by Satraps anyway, you could have Gauls kneeling to Babylon ITTL. You have vastly greater demographics, colonies everywhere, defensible borders in the Caucuses, Persia proper (Bactria is going to be difficult to defend), and at the very least the Danube frontier to Italia.

Assuming it can reach a healthy status quo with India and China, it can live perfectly fine, and also reign as a Mediterranean Hegemon for quite a long time. Hell, have a Bactria satrap with half an ounce of sense and you can ally with most of the hordes, and use wealth to keep them all in line, and in the worse case, crush them, or fall back to Persia proper. To fall you'd need a Civil War within a Civil war, on the frontiers, combined with the Steppe, to knock this guy out, or China to get involved.

This state is a beast, it'd need at least 5/6 3rd century crises to knock it out, and I'm not convinced that with widespread colonialism, the core would be sent back - you're more likely to see a dark ages among those outside the Empire proper.

I'd hypothesis that there are a few Dark Ages scenarios though

1) Whoever was the power in the Western Med is likely to have the "Steppe Warrior Dark Age", as the problems were pushed further and further west. So a Carthaginian or Gallic Dark age - but I don't know what that would look like.

2) Indo-Chinese Dark Age - essentially, India and China managing to fight through the Hindu Kush and the Pamir mountains. One hell of a task. Add these to Steppe migrations deflected off of china, and you could see the Empire collapse without Civil War.

3) Corruption Dark Age - arguably W.Rome had this and the Steppe Warrior Dark Age - if the state can't pay troops, then it will have problems, corruptions and a refusal to pay taxes will create this situation, it is one of the big reasons Rome couldn't raise an Italian army.

4) Disease Dark Age - a big plague could cause enough havoc for a Steppe Warrior Dark age to come forth on the Empire. But honestly, no clue how it would turn out.

This got a bit rambly and a bit off topic, so apologies for the brain dump. Probably doesn't answer any questions - but there you go!
 
Top