alternatehistory.com

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?
Top