As we know at the battle of Granicus river Alexander nearly died and only escaped from death by a millisecond. Well what if he did die on that day. With no Alexander what would have happend to the Macedonian-Persian wars?
WI Alexander the Great dies a premature death
- Thread starter Fredrick II Barbarossa
- Start date
We know.
As for the WI:
I think if Macedonians can unite around a king there will be an invasion and it might be just as succesful.
Wolfpaw
Banned
An essay in the first "What If?" book covers this. Basically, Persia continues as the region's dominant power. Romans grow more attracted to and influenced by Persian culture than that of the relatively unimpressive Greeks, whose short rise and under Alexandros and subsequent fall aborts Hellenism in its cradle.
Last edited:
Wolfpaw
Banned
Yeah. It's not like the whole of Greece is a walkover--pulling that off took some serious brilliance on Philip's part.
I' not aware of "bloody civil war when a king dies" before the death of Alexander... And that was possible because the Macedonians were long away from their homeland and its ethics, and there was a huge empire to split.
Anyway, with Alexander dead in the Granicus' battlefield, the Greek army should have a lot of trouble to maintain its unity. Initialy there cannot be an uprising in Greece, since soldiers from the city-states were with the campaigning force. On the other hand, I do not think a civil conflict of the Macedonians while they are fighting the Persians is possible. Note that the actual power of making a king belonged to the army, so a king could be pronounced right there, in the battlefield, despite that after the war there could be other wannabes, too.
In the end I could see the Persians losing the Asia Minor's Aegean coast. The buterflies of the Persian Empire surviving and remaining dominant in the majority of Middle East region, while the Greek center of interest remaining in the Aegean area intead of moving far eastwards, are countless.
Well, Macedonia was known for its inner crisis (rather than civil war). Usually, tough, it was resolved trough assassination rather than war.
The invasion of Illyrians and Thraces was more an issue.
Now, Macedonia at this time beneficied of more wleath, more stability and what is to fear is more the rebellion of Greek cities and leagues.
Then take a look at the history of what has happened on the death of a king in Macedon before Alexander and Philip.
Its a pretty consistent problem.
King dies, violence and instability until the next king secures himself, repeat the process ten years later.
please do not misinterpret my responce: I do not say that there could not be any inter-Macedonian conflicts over Alexander's death at Granicus, nor that there were no succession conflicts in Macedon before. I just noted that there were no civil wars...
violence and instability yes, clashes between rival wannabe kings and their supporters yes, no civil war though.... These conflicts were neither escalated enough, nor too often to justify a statement like the Macedonians had the habit to make civil wars when their king died...
497-454: Alexander I's rule
454-430: The kingdom breaks up
430-413: Perdikkas II's sole rule
413: A royal bloodbath
413-399: Archelaos's rule
399-391: Royal succession dispute
391-370: Amyntas III's sole rule
Five years and four rulers later, we get Perdikkas III - Philip II's older brother.
Source: Alexander the Great Failure: The Collapse of the Macedonian Empire, by John D. Grainger
Huh, both Macedon and France get great kings under that name. Interesting. Anyway.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civil%20war
"Clashes between wannabe kings and their supporters" is very much a civil war. And conflict happening every time a king dies over the course of more than a century is more than often enough to merit the statement.
Macedon is an unstable kingdom. Kill Alexander off even more prematurely than OTL and you'll get exactly the same kind of problems as happened on his OTL death, because that happened because of the instability of the Macedonian proto-state, not because they were in foreign lands and influenced by those creepy foreigners.
Alexander's death means Philip III Arrhidaeus is probably proclaimed regent by Antipater, though there are other Argead claimants around at this point, iirc- cousins of Alexander who were later killed off. Either way, I think civil war in Macedon is plausible.
Macedonian invasion is briefly stopped, they go on to conquer a little more of Anatolia and hold on (barely) to their greek subjects. A couple generations later the greek-city states reassert themselves, Sparta is wanked heavily in the short term but has a declining population. Anatolia is conquered by the Persians again, the macedonians are conquered during the celtic migration through the Balkans, Epirus survives probably. Persia eventually collapses under its own weight into squabbling ethnic groups including the Medes, Armenians, Babylonians, Bactrians, Parthians... Rome comes to power (although the Punic Wars might be affected), if they succeed in beating Carthage they will fight their way past celts and greeks before getting to the middle east which will be a lot of work but eventually be conquered.
On the immediate results, look to Errnge's timeline (The Weighted Scales) for help (but with a longer lasting Persian empire I believe, but not much longer).
On the immediate results, look to Errnge's timeline (The Weighted Scales) for help (but with a longer lasting Persian empire I believe, but not much longer).
The only Argead left after Alexander's initial purge would have been Arrhidaeus, so he would be the natural choice for the army and the aristocracy to acclaim as King. The real question is who the regent is, and if the army keeps going deeper into Persian territory.
Parmenion and Antipater would be the two most powerful men in the Kingdom, with Parmenion effectively being in control of the army in Asia, and Antipater being Alexander's regent in Macedonia. Both would want to gain power after Alexander's death, but as far as I know, neither has much Argead blood, so their being accepted as regent when stronger claims are out there might be difficult. A person with a lot more royal blood that survived Alexander's purge would be Alexander of Lyncestis, who was a son of Aeropus II of Macedonia, and was still quite alive at this point, and was amongst the most powerful officers in Alexander's army at the time. His name shouldn't be tarnished after Alexander pardoned and promoted him, and he seems to have by far the best blood claim, as he is actually the son of a former King, even if it was a brief reign. Adding to that, he was married to Phila, Antipater's eldest daughter, meaning that some sort of alliance would be likely between the two.
Piecing that together, it seems to me that the best possible outcome (for Macedonian imperial pursuits, I should note), and one of the more likely (far from the most), is that Alexander of Lyncestis is made regent to the reign of Philip Arrhidaeus, supported most by Antipater, and Parmenion brought to a compromise, not having nearly as strong a candidate to promote. AFAIK, both Antipater and Parmenion were friendly with one another, and, since both seem to have been in favor of the Persian expedition (even if Alexander didn't take their advice to marry and produce an heir before going off to war), the two might make a compromise - something along the lines of Philotas marrying one of Philip's daughters and Nicanor one of Antipater's... or something like that. After that, the Persian expedition would continue nominally under the command of Alexander of Lyncestis (Alexander IV), but in reality under Parmenion, while Antipater manned the ship at home. If success is continued to have on the battlefield, the campaign will end after the conquest of Caria, or maybe a little more, if the army is doing really well and the generals proving ambitious.
However a more likely outcome is that the Kingdom tears itself apart. Since this is Macedonia, with a royal history that Elfwine earlier laid out, there is major risk of assassinations and whatnot complicating the process. This risk is only increased when one man controls the army (and has the regent and King right there), the other Macedonia itself, and a dangerous third party in Persia, who will be keeping a keen eye on the succession - they'll want a candidate that won't bother them, and Darius might prove willing to try and sway the discussion. You can see where I'm going with this - Persia helps fund a successful Greek rebellion, led by Sparta and Athens, while assassinations riddle the army's command and the major candidates for the regency. Alexander of Lyncestis, Parmenion, and Antipater all have a good chance of dying, being the main figures in the succession dispute, and the army will be forced to withdraw from Asia. Eventually, after 4-5 months of this a distant compromise candidate comes up, marries one of Philip's daughters, and rules a much weaker Macedonia in Arrhidaeus' name.
There are other possible outcomes: Parmenion might very well allow Antipater the regency or vice versa; there could be civil war... you get the idea. In the end, the outcome will most likely be bad for Macedonia, and good for the big cities of Greece and Persia... but there is a chance that things could continue to go relatively well for them, if Alexander of Lyncestis (or a man of similar blood that I'm not aware of) is rallied around as a compromise candidate by the army and accepted by both Antipater and Parmenion, or if either Antipater or Parmenion manages to become regent and either eliminate or gain the other's support quickly.
Here's a wild card: Alexander of Epirus. I don't know how much to factor him in the discussion - he's married to Alexander's only full-blooded sister, so he's got that going for him, plus he's already King of Epirus... a union between those two crowns would be interesting. Thoughts?
Parmenion and Antipater would be the two most powerful men in the Kingdom, with Parmenion effectively being in control of the army in Asia, and Antipater being Alexander's regent in Macedonia. Both would want to gain power after Alexander's death, but as far as I know, neither has much Argead blood, so their being accepted as regent when stronger claims are out there might be difficult. A person with a lot more royal blood that survived Alexander's purge would be Alexander of Lyncestis, who was a son of Aeropus II of Macedonia, and was still quite alive at this point, and was amongst the most powerful officers in Alexander's army at the time. His name shouldn't be tarnished after Alexander pardoned and promoted him, and he seems to have by far the best blood claim, as he is actually the son of a former King, even if it was a brief reign. Adding to that, he was married to Phila, Antipater's eldest daughter, meaning that some sort of alliance would be likely between the two.
Piecing that together, it seems to me that the best possible outcome (for Macedonian imperial pursuits, I should note), and one of the more likely (far from the most), is that Alexander of Lyncestis is made regent to the reign of Philip Arrhidaeus, supported most by Antipater, and Parmenion brought to a compromise, not having nearly as strong a candidate to promote. AFAIK, both Antipater and Parmenion were friendly with one another, and, since both seem to have been in favor of the Persian expedition (even if Alexander didn't take their advice to marry and produce an heir before going off to war), the two might make a compromise - something along the lines of Philotas marrying one of Philip's daughters and Nicanor one of Antipater's... or something like that. After that, the Persian expedition would continue nominally under the command of Alexander of Lyncestis (Alexander IV), but in reality under Parmenion, while Antipater manned the ship at home. If success is continued to have on the battlefield, the campaign will end after the conquest of Caria, or maybe a little more, if the army is doing really well and the generals proving ambitious.
However a more likely outcome is that the Kingdom tears itself apart. Since this is Macedonia, with a royal history that Elfwine earlier laid out, there is major risk of assassinations and whatnot complicating the process. This risk is only increased when one man controls the army (and has the regent and King right there), the other Macedonia itself, and a dangerous third party in Persia, who will be keeping a keen eye on the succession - they'll want a candidate that won't bother them, and Darius might prove willing to try and sway the discussion. You can see where I'm going with this - Persia helps fund a successful Greek rebellion, led by Sparta and Athens, while assassinations riddle the army's command and the major candidates for the regency. Alexander of Lyncestis, Parmenion, and Antipater all have a good chance of dying, being the main figures in the succession dispute, and the army will be forced to withdraw from Asia. Eventually, after 4-5 months of this a distant compromise candidate comes up, marries one of Philip's daughters, and rules a much weaker Macedonia in Arrhidaeus' name.
There are other possible outcomes: Parmenion might very well allow Antipater the regency or vice versa; there could be civil war... you get the idea. In the end, the outcome will most likely be bad for Macedonia, and good for the big cities of Greece and Persia... but there is a chance that things could continue to go relatively well for them, if Alexander of Lyncestis (or a man of similar blood that I'm not aware of) is rallied around as a compromise candidate by the army and accepted by both Antipater and Parmenion, or if either Antipater or Parmenion manages to become regent and either eliminate or gain the other's support quickly.
Here's a wild card: Alexander of Epirus. I don't know how much to factor him in the discussion - he's married to Alexander's only full-blooded sister, so he's got that going for him, plus he's already King of Epirus... a union between those two crowns would be interesting. Thoughts?
Alexander of Epirus is likely to make this messier - at best by virtue of those who are quarreling over the throne wanting to make sure he's dead/on their side - but I don't know what he'd do or what kind of king he'd be.
Frankly, this is a perfect situation for things to fall apart, because it just needs one of the main three named (there may be even more men who can cause trouble, but let's stick these guys):
Parmenion
Antipater
Alexander of Lyncestis
to want to resolve things in a way that the other two don't accept for there to be trouble.
Not to mention the immediate on the battlefield effect of Alexander dying is quite possibly not pretty, which is not going to help Macedon's situation at all.
Frankly, this is a perfect situation for things to fall apart, because it just needs one of the main three named (there may be even more men who can cause trouble, but let's stick these guys):
Parmenion
Antipater
Alexander of Lyncestis
to want to resolve things in a way that the other two don't accept for there to be trouble.
Not to mention the immediate on the battlefield effect of Alexander dying is quite possibly not pretty, which is not going to help Macedon's situation at all.
Thank you. 
Now that's that's squared away, we can return to the question of how ugly things would get on Alexander's death.
I don't know how Parmenion and Antipater got along - this could either be very explosive or merely two powerful men trying to secure their position in an insecure situation.
And nor am I sure on the relationship Alexander (of Lyncestis) has with either. Again, this could be explosive or merely possibly conflicting ambitions.
But even if it is merely a matter of three powerful men trying to secure their own, that can't be good for the good of Macedon, as it means less attention paid to issues that could tear the empire Philip built to shreds, whether or not Macedon proper (as distinct from its vassals/subjects) is in a civil war.
And of course, if the army finds out Alexander has fallen before the battle is won - what then? Will it rout? Will it try to avenge him? Will it be defeated even if it does try the latter?
The vultures will get fat, in any of those. But who will they feed on?
Now that's that's squared away, we can return to the question of how ugly things would get on Alexander's death.
I don't know how Parmenion and Antipater got along - this could either be very explosive or merely two powerful men trying to secure their position in an insecure situation.
And nor am I sure on the relationship Alexander (of Lyncestis) has with either. Again, this could be explosive or merely possibly conflicting ambitions.
But even if it is merely a matter of three powerful men trying to secure their own, that can't be good for the good of Macedon, as it means less attention paid to issues that could tear the empire Philip built to shreds, whether or not Macedon proper (as distinct from its vassals/subjects) is in a civil war.
And of course, if the army finds out Alexander has fallen before the battle is won - what then? Will it rout? Will it try to avenge him? Will it be defeated even if it does try the latter?
The vultures will get fat, in any of those. But who will they feed on?