Romans, Greeks, and Persians in "No Alexander" TLs

Well, let's assume that one of the following things happened in an ATL:
-The combined army of Athens and Thebes won the battle of Chaeronea, while Phillip II and Alexander III themselves are killed
-Alexander is assasinated alongside his father
-Alexander is killed in the battle of Granicus, which leading to the retreat of Macedonian army and victory of the Persians

In such an "Alexander-less" world, how would the relationship between the Romans, Greeks, and Persians looks like...?

These are my two cents:
1. Roman-Greek relationship
Without Alex's conquests to spread their civilization to much of known world, the Greeks would pretty much confined in Greece proper and their already-existed colonies in Sicily, Magna Graecia, Ionian coast, etc. Thus Greek language and culture were never become so influencing in Eastern Mediterranean, as Egypt, Syria, and most of Anatolia will remain Persian for a very long time. The impact of this change from OTL is that the Greeks will be viewed by the Romans more as "subjects", rather than "partners" like in OTL. But I'm still pretty sure that the Greek civilization will still spreading westward, and that the Romans themselves will still strongly influenced by the Greeks...

2. Greco-Persian relationship
The Persians will still continuing their "Divide et Impera" policy toward the Greeks, at least until the Romans are strong enough to intervene. I can imagine a massive Greek war, maybe between Delian and Peloponnesian League (I'm not sure whether Achaean and Aetolian League will still emerge in this ATL or not), with both Romans and Persians supporting the opposite sides. But in the end, of course, the Romans will ultimately win and Greece itself will become Roman province...

3. Roman-Persian relationship
IMO the Romans and Persians are destined to always become "BEF" (Best Enemy Forever) in almost any TLs. However, there will be a major change with the OTL: the Euphrates won't served as the border, but it will be the Aegean Sea, as Anatolia and Syria will be retained by the Persians. Cycladic Islands, Ionia, and Thrace will become OTL Mesopotamia and Armenia, that is an area which always be disputed and become the battlegrounds for Roman-Persian Wars. But, of course, there are always some possibilities that a strong and militaristic Roman Emperor (like OTL Trajan) will make a major gains, maybe conquering Egypt and Anatolia up to Taurus Mountains...?
Anyway, the Romans in this ATL will surely ended up less wealthy, less stable, and thus less powerful, as they never acquired the rich Eastern Mediterranean regions and never get a full and total control over Mediterranean Sea...

Opinions? Thoughts?
Agreements? Disagreements?

(Btw there are some other major issues, like Christianity and Islam, but I don't want to discuss about that...)
 
Last edited:

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
No Alexander would create butterflies on steroids. Not being an expert on Ancient history I can't say much more, other than the map of the ancient world would be VERY different.
 
The lack of Alexandrian conquests in the Near East would not have any perceivable effect on the rise of Rome. But Rome's imperialist expansion is not assured either. In the 300's BCE, Rome was only the most dominant state in Latium, Umbria, Etruria and Campania. But they were still in direct contact with the Samnite Federation in the Appenines and the Celtic Insubres, Cenomani, Boii, Senones and Turingi in the north. Carthage was the most dominant maratime force in the western Med at this point, with the Hellenic Syracuse being the most powerful of the Hellenic city-states that contested Punic militarism in Sicily.

The Persian Achaemenid Empire may hang on for slightly longer, but if it doesn't fall to Macedonian or Greek expeditions from the west, or possible Saka incursions from the north, it could just as well implode from rival princes of the blood, or ambitious regional satraps striving for autonomy or influence over the throne.

Before his death, Philip II of Macedonia ruled over much of southern Thrace, Thessaly, Molossia (part of Epirus, or Albania) and the rest of Greece, the Aegean islands as far as Samothrace and Rhodes through the Corinthian League, with the exception of Sparta and part of Lacedaemonia. If him and Alexander were to die at the same time, then without a capable successor, all that may fall apart within a decade. The League of Corinth may break off whole from Macedonian overlordship in the interests of mutual protection. And unless a militaristic strongman quickly takes over the regency of Macedonia, the throne would be up for grabs by rival aristocratic families, with the Thracian client-kings in the north and Greek colonies in the north seizing independence.
 
The lack of Alexandrian conquests in the Near East would not have any perceivable effect on the rise of Rome. But Rome's imperialist expansion is not assured either. In the 300's BCE, Rome was only the most dominant state in Latium, Umbria, Etruria and Campania. But they were still in direct contact with the Samnite Federation in the Appenines and the Celtic Insubres, Cenomani, Boii, Senones and Turingi in the north. Carthage was the most dominant maratime force in the western Med at this point, with the Hellenic Syracuse being the most powerful of the Hellenic city-states that contested Punic militarism in Sicily.

Then what would be the immediate effect of lack of Alexander's conquests, to the rise of Rome in the western Mediterranean...? And how about Phyrrus? Would he still invading Italy and Sicily in this ATL?

The Persian Achaemenid Empire may hang on for slightly longer, but if it doesn't fall to Macedonian or Greek expeditions from the west, or possible Saka incursions from the north, it could just as well implode from rival princes of the blood, or ambitious regional satraps striving for autonomy or influence over the throne.

How long would the Achaemenids be able to survive? Would a strong, native Persian dynasty taking over, and butterflying away Parthian dominance? Or the Parthians still showed up like in the schedule of the OTL?
 
IOTL the Parthians took over Persia (well, the core of it) in 247 BC. This was less than one century after Alex' death. Maybe an equivalent of them would appear. And then?
 
It's possible that the Parthians conquer most of the eastern territories of the old Persian empire. The Parthians weren't no more centralized than the Persians either so their rule will be a bit tenuous.

You might have a resurgent Egypt and Bablyonia arising in the ashes.
 
Here's a few other thoughts:

- Without Helenization, Anatolia will be linguistically a lot more diverse than OTL, and the Anatolian languages are likely to survive significantly longer than they did in OTL.

- In the early 3rd century BC, the Celts under the second Brennos (the first one was the chieftain of the Senones, who sacked Rome in the 4th century BC) invaded Greece. In OTL, the invasion was halted, but a part of the invasion force moved on and moved into Anatolia, establishing the kingdom of Galatia. We don't know how the invasion would turn out in this TL.
 
Here's a few other thoughts:

- Without Helenization, Anatolia will be linguistically a lot more diverse than OTL, and the Anatolian languages are likely to survive significantly longer than they did in OTL.

- In the early 3rd century BC, the Celts under the second Brennos (the first one was the chieftain of the Senones, who sacked Rome in the 4th century BC) invaded Greece. In OTL, the invasion was halted, but a part of the invasion force moved on and moved into Anatolia, establishing the kingdom of Galatia. We don't know how the invasion would turn out in this TL.

A Celtic Greece could be fun.
 
A no Alexander didn't mean automatically the fall of Macedonia; maybe Philip III Arrhidaeus, apart from his mental problems ( even if they were real, probably it was affected only by ephilessy...), could be able to save the day... surely no fall of Achaemenid Empire, but at least a great Macedonia later able to create a Kingdom of Greece...
 
Greek Egypt

One other thing to consider is that there might arise a situation where Egypt secedes from the dying Persian Empire with the help and assistance of the Greeks. In OTL they tried it once during the time of Pericles. Needless to say, it didn't work out too well for them, but with the continued decay of the empire, they might still get their chance here.

The Greeks could take the norther part of the Nile Delta and control trade, maybe build some Alexandria-like city, while some native Egyptian dynasty with varying degrees of hellenisation would control everything south of that all the way to Nubia.
 
Also, the Persians could have serious troubles from the East. I doubt that Chandragupta Maurya would go all the way to Persepolis, but he ha a decent chance to leave a stronger Indian cultural mark over eastern Iranic lands.
 
I wonder to what extent the absence of Alexander would impact India and Buddhism. To judge by the Genocide the Graeco-Buddhists had a lot of influence on the development of some sects of it, though this being the Genocide I'd prefer input from people who are more likely to know the actual things with that.
 
I wonder to what extent the absence of Alexander would impact India and Buddhism. To judge by the Genocide the Graeco-Buddhists had a lot of influence on the development of some sects of it, though this being the Genocide I'd prefer input from people who are more likely to know the actual things with that.

Actually, the impact will probably be greater than just India alone. The Graeco-Buddhist culture had a considerable impact on arts in Asia (especially sculpturing), and it's absence will also cause changes in China, Korea and Japan. For instance, the Nio guardians in Japan are actually based off Heracles. ;)
 
Top