Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by bob123456789, Nov 6, 2019.
How does this change history?
Would Persia possibly have been tempted- & maybe even mounted- a THIRD invasion of Greece?
I think that Greece would form a part of the Persian empire. Perhaps a more western-centric Roman empire might come about at the border would be in the Balkans rather than the Levant.
Pretty unlikely. With or without Alexander the Persian campaign will happen and will be likely pretty successful. Without Alexander it’s leader would be either a still living Philip II or Amyntas IV (nephew and son-in-law of Philip, and his predecessor for a short time when he was an infant. If Philip died as OTL and the only other heirs are Arrhidaeus and an infant son of Cleopatra Eurydice then Amyntas will likely be able to secure quickly the crown. Likely he will try to get on his side Philip’s last Queen and her powerful uncle offering his own little daughter and only child as bride for her son)
Almost certainly not. The last Persian invasion had been in 480, after which the Achaemenids rather lost their taste for invading Greece. More likely they'd just continue with their subsequent policy of funding coalitions against any power which looked set to become hegemonic over the Greek cities.
There is a substantial change I'd expect over Alexander. People forget that whilst Alexander was a brash, brilliant general, and very talented, he had THE top-tier army in the world at this point, based mostly on evolutions from Philips reforms. What Alexander brought was that he very much brought the adoption of the Persian style, and changing a war of revenge to becoming the Persian Emperor, something I don't expect of other Macedonian rulers.
Tyre might become independent rather than conquered, only to fall under the economic hegemony of the Empire, and be annexed that way instead. Egypt would likely still fall to Phillip, and I could entirely see Phillip taking the Empire west of the Euphrates for sure, but I can't see why the war wouldn't go as far as possible. He wanted a war of revenge - Macedonia ruling basically the ERE hundreds of years earlier basically means we can look to see a vastly more Greek Eastern Med, less likelihood of the fragmentation of the Diadochi period, and likely a Greek unification, with Italy being the next logical target.
We don't see an Argead Persian Empire, but we certainly see an Argead Mediterranean Empire. Probably more sustainable in the long run, Egypt is probably the biggest thorn domestically, with Persia the existential eastern threat once it reorganises. Instead we have the Argeads conquering Italy slowly, securing the Greek cities of the west, and likely having a fight with Carthage with their size as the upper hand.
Basically - Argead Hegemony of the Med and Levant, and the old Greek World held under the Hellenic League, slowly dissolved and annexed.
It depends on how Alexander is not born. If Philip II is still around, then things will mostly go around OTL, but when the battle of Chaeronea comes, who’s going to exploit the gap in the Theban line in the nick of time? At Chaeronea or an ATL battle site, defeat is still a distinct possibility. But no Alexander means Philip II probably still has male children, but they wouldn’t be OTL Alexander.
not to mention the Indo-Greeks not coming into existence ITTL...that has absolutely massive butterflies...
Good point! No Greek influence on Buddhism, unless it arrives via trade.
No War of the Heavenly Horses, which means China doesn't really have horses to compete with the nomads.
The only caveat I'd add to this is that Persia very much had already been deporting Greeks to Bactria, specifically Ionian Greeks. So we do have some roots. Given the potential chaos of Persia after the initial war, it may well lead to a Greek-influenced independent satrap - doubly so if it allies with the Argeads to protect their independence. That could create similar effects.
Not directly tied to the Indo-Greeks, but no introduction of Elephants to warfare in Greece.
AIUI the exploiting the gap manoeuvre was part of a premeditated plan rather than something Alexander came up with on the fly. So without him, one of Philip's other subordinates probably just gets given the job instead.
Interestingly, I think we'd see very different borders, and a major strategic point would be "Who holds Iberia/The Caucuses"? If the Argeads have that region, it helps secure the Black Sea, which would benefit them - and could even mean a port on the Caspian, meaning more direct connections to those exiled Ionians.
Much of Alexander's success, without detracting his own abilities, was built on the foundation laid out by his father Philip II of Macedon who was no slouch when it came to leading his armies. I could very well see Philip uniting the Balkans as he essentially did and committing some sort of punitive expedition against Persia that leads to Asia Minor becoming Argead lands.
Well first, does Phillip II still die at the same time as OTL?
The plan itself required almost perfect precision and execution, and with a less brilliant general than Alexander this maneuver has a real chance of failure.
Alexander was in no way the only general in Philip’s army able to get that maneuver right, plus we know for sure very little about that battle: Alexander’s role in it was surely determinant for the victory, but is possible who was not indispensable to Philip’s victory AND is likely who a loss at Chaeronea would not be determinant for Philip
Separate names with a comma.