WI: Alexander never conquers Persia, but Rome does 200 years later?

Deleted member 97083

Alexander the Great's conquest of Persia was a rather unprecedented event. While the Macedonian phalanx was effective, it was nowhere near the sole factor contributing to the Macedonian king's success against the extremely wealthy, powerful Achaemenid Empire, which fielded a mixed-arms force that had dealt with many foes before. Alexander's personal military skill, his many allies, and a great deal of luck went to his conquest of that empire. And without him, it is rather likely that the Persian Empire would have persisted for centuries onward.

That said, Alexander showed that conquering a stable, capable empire without warning was entirely possible. Instead of Alexander, why not the Romans at their Republican height?

So, assume the Persian Empire survived for a bit over 200 years after Alexander's non-existence. Greek population pressure leads to more settlement of colonies, and more infighting between the city-states, rather than the Hellenistic period. Meanwhile, the Roman Republic still becomes hegemon of the western Mediterranean, experiencing a largely OTL rise in Italy, then against Carthage, and then interventions in Greece.

In this scenario, what if a character similar to Gaius Marius or an earlier Julius Caesar invaded the surviving Persian Empire, getting no more lucky than Alexander, and conquered it in one piece for the Roman Republic?

How badly would Roman diadochi fight over the new land?

And what would such a "Romanistic period" look like in Persia? What would greater Persian influence look like in Rome?

Would Aramaic and Persian become the primary languages of Eastern Mediterranean elites, rather than Greek? Would satrapies eventually be integrated into the Roman administration?
 
To be honest, the butterflies from "no successful Alexander" basically avert the rise of Rome.

The Greek polities in the era of Phillip of Macedon were forming larger and larger leagues. Their population was booming, their organizations becoming more federalized or centralized and more advanced. Sooner or later, the peninsula would be united, and sooner or later that unified polity would need to strike against Iran, both for its own expansion and to secure it's long term stability in the face of Iranian pressure and attempts to disunify this new rival. Accordingly, you'd see some sort of major invasion by a Greek polity into Iran.

But let's say this is a disaster. Let's say this alt Alexander fails and the league he has forged collpased. The Era of city states is over, but the manpower of the Greek world isn't drained. They'd have to turn somewhere. We'd see adventurers in Carthage and Italy, Egypt and Sicily. We'd see the young men of Greece going abroad for opportunity, and attempts by these federated Greek states to exert their power across the Mediterranean. We'd see Rome, if it kept expanding, brought into conflict with a Greek world that wasn't unbalanced in its eastern focus, and that wasn't weakened by the Diadochi wars. We'd see a world where the Celts never overran Macedon in all probability. We'd see a world where the Greeks of Italia would still appeal for aid, but one where without Alexander's example they'd get a liberator (or worst case a hegemon) not a conqueror. We'd see a world where Rome is invariably going to struggle much harder for dominance than they did in our timeline.

And if the Romans reach Persia, what reason is there that the Achaemenids are still in power? A Saka dynasty might have conquered them, or any number of resurgent threats. Undoubtedly their army would not closely resemble that which fought Alexander. It would be newer, adapted to fighting disunited Greek states and the Saka alike. Expect a far more deadly cavalry arm and a much greater reliance on heavy infantry forces. Expect an Iran that's well accustomed to being an imperial power, and could probably provide a plausible threat to the Romans.

Alexander wasn't a matter of luck, he was a perfect storm of circumstances. It's no easy thing to say that another Roman would have to get equally lucky - they'd have to find another perfect circumstance to invade and have talent equal to Alexander's. Also, the Roman state would never lead to a Diadochi type scenario. That just wasn't what they were like.
 
And if the Romans reach Persia, what reason is there that the Achaemenids are still in power? A Saka dynasty might have conquered them, or any number of resurgent threats. Undoubtedly their army would not closely resemble that which fought Alexander. It would be newer, adapted to fighting disunited Greek states and the Saka alike. Expect a far more deadly cavalry arm and a much greater reliance on heavy infantry forces. Expect an Iran that's well accustomed to being an imperial power, and could probably provide a plausible threat to the Romans..



So TTL's "Battle of Magnesia" could be an earlier version of Carrhae.
 
Alternatively, you don't have Philip die - goes on a bit of a war and never conquers Persia, but instead takes over the Anatolian Plateau, Egypt and the Levant. But this Empire automatically means that Rome hasn't got a chance of taking over the Western Med.
 
Alternatively, you have Philip only be interested in securing Greece and Anatolia - that creates a formidable Empire of the Greeks.

They aren't likely to be rofl-stomped by the Celts later on, but it gives Rome the opening. But that still means that whatever goes to help the leagues in S.Italy is stronger, unless there is significant effort to colonise the Western Med. Rather than colonising all of Asia, they go west, expand the initial colonies and polities that Rome had to overcome IOTL. Assuming they succeed and don't overly change in character, you get a wealthier, more hellenic Roman Empire that could overcome the Empire of the Greeks (especially if the Celts come along and break against them).

Such an Empire of the Greeks has the issue then of population drain that counters their population advantage, combined with an unstable Persian Empire that repeatedly attacks but gets rebuffed, then hit my a large Celt invasion that is held off, but then hit by ambitious Romans. The increased wealth density in the W.Med, and in Greece and Anatolia would set them up in a better position to invade Persia - which hasn't had any of the impacts of Greek Colonisation, arguably in a worse position than the Selucids.

Stronger Rome, Weaker Persia - Rome can turn the Satraps into Client states, using the great wealth of Persia to fund their occupation.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
There are two PODs that have essentially the same effect. One is that Alexander dies just after his old man, as he is consolidating his position in Greece and Thrace (which he had to do before embarking on his expedition). Macedon collapses into in-fighting, and the practical plan to invade Persia was very much Philip's idea. The general notion still exists, but without Macedon to spearhead the effort, the Greek city-states (happy to be freed of Macedonian overlordship) are very likely delayed in actually carrying it out.

The other POD is that Kleitos the Black is a few seconds later, and Alexander gets a second axe-blow to his head at the Granikos-- shattering his helmet and killing him on the spot. His campaign collapses into disarray, and is easily mopped up by the Persian forces sent to deal with the problem. In this case, as well, Macedon collapses into in-fighting. The Greek city-states consider themselves feeed from the Macedonian yoke, and any renewed Hellenic expedition to the east will not come about for some time.

And that has consequences, because...

Alexander wasn't a matter of luck, he was a perfect storm of circumstances.

...circumstances will change over time. And soon! The Achaemenid empire was having trouble at the exact time Alexander invaded, but was by no means moribund or doomed. Given a few years to recover from the effects of a its recent succession struggle, it would be in a far better position to fend off any Hellenic invasion attempt. That said, certain areas in the far west were hard to defend against the Greeks; Egypt and western Anatolia might well be wrenched loose from Persian control. But I don't see more than that just happening. (Of course, it is possible that the Achaemenid empire just declines for unrelated reasons anyway, and becomes easy prey anyway. But that's somehing the writer of a TL has to make up. For the purposes of this scenario, let's assume that doesn't happen.)

So what's the general situation in Greece? Well...

The Greek polities in the era of Phillip of Macedon were forming larger and larger leagues. Their population was booming, their organizations becoming more federalized or centralized and more advanced.

...this is very accurate. But this...

Sooner or later, the peninsula would be united, and sooner or later that unified polity would need to strike against Iran, both for its own expansion and to secure it's long term stability in the face of Iranian pressure and attempts to disunify this new rival. Accordingly, you'd see some sort of major invasion by a Greek polity into Iran.

...might not be. It's just as likely that Greece, freed from the Macedonian overlordship established by Philip, and no longer facing a Macedonian threat (becaue Macedon will have collapsed into mutually hostile fiefs, as it always threatened to do before Philip consolidated his power), doesn't unite. The Greeks didn't particularly want to unite. A system of competing leagues is more likely, in my opinion.

As I pointed out, the Greeks might well try (and very possibly succeed in) grabbing Egypt and (western) Anatolia. Possibly, one league grabs Egypt, and another goes for western Anatolia? This scenario, of two or more competing leagues, seems like a very plausible outcome to me. More likely than Greece being unified as one whole. The Persians, of course, would try to play off the Greek polities against each other-- as had always been the Persian strategy.

This means that the following...

The Era of city states is over, but the manpower of the Greek world isn't drained. They'd have to turn somewhere. We'd see adventurers in Carthage and Italy, Egypt and Sicily. We'd see the young men of Greece going abroad for opportunity, and attempts by these federated Greek states to exert their power across the Mediterranean.

...may not be the natural outcome at all. Greek adventururs will end up in Egypt and Anatolia (which are in any case much richer than the west), and iof exerting power, they're most likely to be duking out their rivalry with other Greeks. The Persian aim will almost certainly be to cause another Peloponnesian war, pitting Greek against Greek so the threat to Persia is much reduced. that strategy has worked before, and might well work again. Even if not, I don't really see a single Greek 'empire' taking over the westwern Med. Personally, I thinbk it's very likely that such a strategy would work, and that the Greek world would end up in a war against itself anyway.

The rise of Rome would not automatically be butterflied. All this is very much based on choices made by a TL's author. Everything can work out in various ways... but it's not a given that Rome would be butterflied, or that it would be facing a strong and united Hellenic world. Rome might still end up conquering the Hellenic world, much as it did in OTL.

At that point, the question becomes... what is Persia like at that point? Well...

And if the Romans reach Persia, what reason is there that the Achaemenids are still in power? A Saka dynasty might have conquered them, or any number of resurgent threats. Undoubtedly their army would not closely resemble that which fought Alexander. It would be newer, adapted to fighting disunited Greek states and the Saka alike. Expect a far more deadly cavalry arm and a much greater reliance on heavy infantry forces. Expect an Iran that's well accustomed to being an imperial power, and could probably provide a plausible threat to the Romans.

...something like this is very possible. But for the sake of the scenario posited in this thread, let's assume it's not the case.

Realistically, I just don't see Rome conquering all of Persia. Not even if Persia has, over time, really become a moribund empire ripe for the picking. As pointed out, Alexander was the 'perfect storm'. That kind of conquest, in one fell swoop, only happens whwen it is driven by one personality bent on achieving it. The Roman Republic didn't work that way, really.

On the other hand: military success was one way to gain political status in Rome. One could imagine a very capable general conquering Persia almost by accident. Going for the near east... and just... succeeding beyond his own expectations, and pusing on. And on. And on.

Even in that case... I don't see Rome holding it. It's too big, and their centre of power is too far away. Most likely, they'll try to form allied states in the region, while annexing everything up to Mesopotamia and Armenia directly.
 
Top