What if The Athenians and Thebans beat Phillip II at Charonea?

So I was reading about this, and I found it to be an interesting question. Both armies numbered a combined total of about sixty thousand, and it was relatively equal on both sides. This means they both has around 30,000 men; a battle the greeks could have very well won.

The battle was won by the Macedonians, when a whole opened up in the line between the Theban sacred band, and the rest of the Greek lines, and Alexander charged through the gap, eventually routing the army. The Theban Sacred Band however, fought to the death.

So, first, do you think the Athenians could have won? I think it was very possible, they actually managed to break a part of the Macedonian line at one point, and their numbers were relatively equal to that of the Macedonians. If they won, what do you think would happen after that? Would it only be a matter of time still before Phillip defeated the Macedonians? Or would this change the course of history completely?
 
So I was reading about this, and I found it to be an interesting question. Both armies numbered a combined total of about sixty thousand, and it was relatively equal on both sides. This means they both has around 30,000 men; a battle the greeks could have very well won.

The battle was won by the Macedonians, when a whole opened up in the line between the Theban sacred band, and the rest of the Greek lines, and Alexander charged through the gap, eventually routing the army. The Theban Sacred Band however, fought to the death.

So, first, do you think the Athenians could have won? I think it was very possible, they actually managed to break a part of the Macedonian line at one point, and their numbers were relatively equal to that of the Macedonians. If they won, what do you think would happen after that? Would it only be a matter of time still before Phillip defeated the Macedonians? Or would this change the course of history completely?


1. Of course they could have won under the right circumstances
2. If they win, you might get anything from:
a. minimal butterflies - Phillip comes back and kicks their ass the following year, but still dies either before or during the planned persian campaign. Alex succeeds him and takes over the east as the Persian empire crumbles, going as far as India, gaining everlasting glory. His lifestyle (or an assassin) gets the better of him, and his satraps vie for power. His brother and son(s) are killed in the struggle, and none of the satraps manages to subdue the others. You might get anywhere from 2 to 6 large-ish diadochi kingdoms. The ones in the west get mauled by the Celts and then taken by the Romans while the ones in the east get either overrun by steppe nomads or go native to a very large degree

b. huge butterflies - Macedonia never conquers the southern Greeks, Rome is destroyed by a migrating tribe (maybe Cimbri, who might then settle Italy) or by a Greece-based polity (think Super-Pyrrhus) thanks to butterflies, the migrating Celts settle anywhere from the Balkans to Egypt, the Persians fragment and may or may not go through a Chinese-style cycle of unity and division. Hell, the Celts might even completely trash Greece, though I personally give than a VERY low chance at that. Egypt see periods of independence and/or domination by a powerfull state to its north, and might even dominate the eastern med themselves (ala the Ptolemies) or, their cities might get razed by an aggresive northern invader (thus loosing lots of awesome bits of culture). OR go the other route, and have a strong and stable Graeco-Macedonian empire dominate the eastern Med and Mesopotamia, with varying control over the Iranian plateau and central med lands (S-Italy, Sicilly, Carthage), and hellenization all over the place.

You can really take it almost whichever way you want.
 
b. huge butterflies - Macedonia never conquers the southern Greeks, Rome is destroyed by a migrating tribe (maybe Cimbri, who might then settle Italy) or by a Greece-based polity (think Super-Pyrrhus) thanks to butterflies, the migrating Celts settle anywhere from the Balkans to Egypt, the Persians fragment and may or may not go through a Chinese-style cycle of unity and division. Hell, the Celts might even completely trash Greece, though I personally give than a VERY low chance at that. Egypt see periods of independence and/or domination by a powerfull state to its north, and might even dominate the eastern med themselves (ala the Ptolemies) or, their cities might get razed by an aggresive northern invader (thus loosing lots of awesome bits of culture). OR go the other route, and have a strong and stable Graeco-Macedonian empire dominate the eastern Med and Mesopotamia, with varying control over the Iranian plateau and central med lands (S-Italy, Sicilly, Carthage), and hellenization all over the place.

You can really take it almost whichever way you want.

How would this cause Rome to fall?
 
How would this cause Rome to fall?



I think that was artistic license, after all he was going for highest butterfly extent with b)


Exactly. Maybe in this alternate universe, Rome is still at odds with Carthage, both figthing on-and-off wars of attrition against each other. They gradually exhaust each other ala Byzantines and Sassanids prior to the Muslim conquests. Thus, if and when the Cimbri come, Rome is much weaker and suffers serious defeats at their hands. ITTL, the Cimbri don't go off to fight in Gaul, but rather follow up their succes against Rome. The Roman alliance crumbles as various groups and cities feel they can no longer rely on them/ no longer fear them. A protracted siege of Rome, even if unsuccessful, will devaste the surrounding area and cause many deaths (think siege of Rome). With its alliance crumbled, Rome will be unable to get enough grain into the city, and starvation (and thus probably an increase in disease) will follow. This will set the stage for another polity to destroy it later (maybe the Cimbri kingdom that might be established in the area, another powerfull italian city like Capua or Tarentum, or maybe even their old enemies, the carthaginians)
 
Well magnum,

it doesn't sound to me like "an artistic licence" ,but a real possibility.
If Greeks remain independent,then Phillip will think his defeat by the Athenians in Byzantium,his defeat by the Athenians and Thebans in Cheronea it is certain that he will see the revival of the second Athenian alliance,that is to say the control of Eastern Mediterranean by the Athenian fleets.
This precludes strategically the possibility of a protracted campaign in Asia by Phillip;this time he would be afraid of reprisals from Thebans and Athenians and assassination is in the cards and that could save his life.

Either Philip or Alexander,would be difficult to get an approval at the council of Corinth.The possibility of Memnon finding a fruitful ground in Greece or Spartan colusion may lead to extensive negotiations,the Macedonians to come to an agreement with Athens and Sparta.
The fact remains that after Issos Alexander may march south to conquer Phoenicia and Egypt ,but as soon as Darius sents his famous offer of peace,it will be accepted and Alexander or Phillip returns home triumphant and,knowing about the Athenian disaster in Sicily,he would ask the Athenian fleet to transport his army west and in return give them Syracusae and Sicily on a plater.(the Greeks in Magna Grecia to assist him to subdue their northern neighbours).
The remarkable thing is that Livy makes such hypothesis and desperately tries to present a valid argument about the difficulties that Alexander would meet in the event of his invasion of Italy(doesn't convince anyone naturally...),but makes us wonder what information existed that exited the ears of Livy on that matter that hasn't arrived down to us about the real possibility of that happening;if it did,Rome would resist Alexander and would become a parking lot for chariots.
 
Here's another one. What if Alexander was killed at the River Granicus? If the guy doesn't get his arm chopped off, and kills Alexander, is the campaign over? Is that it?
 
Here's another one. What if Alexander was killed at the River Granicus? If the guy doesn't get his arm chopped off, and kills Alexander, is the campaign over? Is that it?

Is Phillip there or not? anyway I don't believe the campaign would stop there...It was also Hefaisteion there to reckon with and a bunch of very capable commanders.
 
Is Phillip there or not? anyway I don't believe the campaign would stop there...It was also Hefaisteion there to reckon with and a bunch of very capable commanders.

Someone else takes over who's senior but not too old, Cassander probably.

The entire Macedonian nobility has too much at stake by then.
 
Someone else takes over who's senior but not too old, Cassander probably.

The entire Macedonian nobility has too much at stake by then.

Hefaistion without doubt,but he would defer to Parmenion as more experinced(and also capable)
 
Top