WI Alexander the Great lost at Gaugamela?

Status
Not open for further replies.

bard32

Banned
Three years ago, at the height of the mini-sword-and-sandal boomlet, Oliver Stone made a movie about Alexander the Great. One of his greatest battles was Gaugamela. What if Alexander the Great lost the Battle of Gaugamela?
What effect would such a loss have on Western history?
 
A lot depends on how exactly the battle is lost. Is Alexander killed in a complete rout? Does he manage to pull back his force in reasonably good order?
 
So far from home and with the Persian numbers i would expect them to be completely routed. Everyone dead, apart from maybe some generals and nobles on fast horses.

There was an essay i read on this, apart from the POD was the Battle of Granicus. Athens reasserts itself in Greece and becomes dominant again, but gets into conflict with Carthage. Eventually (and thus comes a gross simplification) Rome intervenes and crushes both, but in wars with the Persian Empire never overtly wins. Christianity never really flourishes because its tolerated within the Persian Empire.
 
So far from home and with the Persian numbers i would expect them to be completely routed. Everyone dead, apart from maybe some generals and nobles on fast horses.

There was an essay i read on this, apart from the POD was the Battle of Granicus. Athens reasserts itself in Greece and becomes dominant again, but gets into conflict with Carthage. Eventually (and thus comes a gross simplification) Rome intervenes and crushes both, but in wars with the Persian Empire never overtly wins. Christianity never really flourishes because its tolerated within the Persian Empire.

This is one thing that irks me about a lot of AH. Even the AH that has PODs centuries before Christ that would have directly affected the politics, the society, and the religion of the Mediterranean (not to mention population movements), still often result in Christianity and, even more surprisingly, Islam coming along exactly on schedule. Even the same people are involved.

My own take is, with a POD around Alexander's time of the magnitude suggested, the world would be barely recognizable down the line. Christianity, let alone Islam, would probably not even come into existence, and if some form of equivalents do, they would be very different due to different circumstances, and it would probably happen at a different point in time.

As for Greece, the problem with Greek politics is such that in the absence of strong Macedonian hegemon, the Greeks would spend more time squabbling with one another than actually attempting to expand their influence other than via cultural methods. This means that Rome and Carthage continue on as on schedule, but whoever ends up winning there (my bet is on Rome, as the conditions will be still quite similar to OTL, which in the long run made Hannibal's successes unlikely as they were), will have easier time going after Greece should they decide to do so, if only because of the lack of strong hegemon, and lack of a military system proven against non-Greeks.

Of course, if a proper Greek hegemon emerges (after all, who is to say someone is not going to pick up the pieces and pretty much take Alexander's place in history), the situation changes. Any ideas on who such a hegemon might be? Another coming of Macedonia? Or perhaps one of Asiatic Greek states? I doubt that Athens would be able to hold together a true empire without an external enemy to fight, as in peacetime, their control would slip quite low... Sparta is slowly dying out and in no position to expand its power and influence... Thebes have the same problem as Athens, and so on...
 
how stabile was the persian empire at that point?

one could guess zoroastrism fills all the needs that christianity fed upon, but if the empire still colapses could it be maintained?

also this would mean no hellenism as is seen in OTL, no helenist influence in centrall asia, diferent buddist art and sculpture for example, but maybe a persian wersion of "hellenism" or persian culturall dominance ower OTL helenist world?

id say if persian empire stays stabile and lives long, trade, culture, law, filosofy etc... flourish, possibly more than OTL, and there is strong interaction betveen european mediteran and india, maybe even china or some other central/east asian culture, in terms of trade and exchange of ideas and knowlege

if persian empire colapses for any number of possible reasons, who knows... something simillar to OTL... or not
 

bard32

Banned
A lot depends on how exactly the battle is lost. Is Alexander killed in a complete rout? Does he manage to pull back his force in reasonably good order?

The thing is that if Darius III's scythe chariots had worked, it would have been
Alexander, not Darius, who was running away in full retreat. It would also have been Alexander who was killed by his own men.
 
Its not whether they would have worked but whether Alexander was slightly less of a tactical genius. He invented a tactic known as the mousetrap, where the unit of Phalanx men would literally lure the chariot in and then trap it in a wall of spears.
 
I really can't see any reason for the Achaeminid Empire to fall at all. In OTL the Hellenic Seleucids soon shook down into a standard Persian Empire until taken by the Sassanians after a Parthian interlude.

What could bring them down? Basically only horse barbarians from Central Asia, and the Sassanians coped well with them until the Arab conquests, which would never have happened in TTL because the big war between Rome and Persia in the 7th century would never have happened either.

When the Turks came along in due course they would have been diverted North of the Caspian with unforseeable consequences...

Midgard is spot on about a total discontinuity with OTL.
 
If Alexander is defeated and killed, then it will be very unlikely indeed that at a later date Pyrrhus will invade Italy. Roman military evolution will take a different course as will its political development and its settlement of the situation in southern Italy. This makes the outcome of the conflicts with Carthage less clear.

My impression is that Rome will still win its conflict with Carthage but the cost may be higher if the status of the Roman allies is less clear and therefore they are less loyal. Conversely there will be an easier conquest of the Hellenic world because there will be no Seleucid or Ptolemaic kingdoms to oppose Rome. Macedon itself may very well be weaker than in OTL.

In conflicts with the Persians, will Rome be satisfied with the territory it took from the successor states as OTL? Once Rome came along the Seleucids were reduced to their Syrian rump but without them presumably Persia will still control the area. I have no reason to suppose that Roman arms will not defeat Persia and will they then continue the war into the heartland of the Empire?
 
Well I don't think the Romans will have any sort of cake walk with a war with a continuing Achaemenid Empire at all.

Remember Egypt will be part of that Empire, as will all of Anatolia and maybe Thrace and Macedonia. The enrichment of the Roman Republic that took place in OTL due the looting of Asia and capture of the Egyptian bread basket will not have taken place. Even Syria will be a Persian satrapy.

Even in our TL the Romans never did well against the Persians, as demonstrated in every Eastern campaign from Crassus to Julian. The Persians came within an ace of beating the East Romans in the Seventh century in alliance with the Avars. Only Heraclius turned the tables after a long debilitating and inconclusive war that opened the door for both empires to the Arabs.
 
Well I don't think the Romans will have any sort of cake walk with a war with a continuing Achaemenid Empire at all.

Remember Egypt will be part of that Empire, as will all of Anatolia and maybe Thrace and Macedonia. The enrichment of the Roman Republic that took place in OTL due the looting of Asia and capture of the Egyptian bread basket will not have taken place. Even Syria will be a Persian satrapy.

Even in our TL the Romans never did well against the Persians, as demonstrated in every Eastern campaign from Crassus to Julian. The Persians came within an ace of beating the East Romans in the Seventh century in alliance with the Avars. Only Heraclius turned the tables after a long debilitating and inconclusive war that opened the door for both empires to the Arabs.

Persia only did well against Roman armies when the terrain favoured cavalry. In Anatolia, Syria and Egypt I suspect Rome will have the advantage. If they persue the Persians into their heartland, then the cavalry will again be decisive as in OTL.
 
Well, it always went the same way historically. The Romans followed the Euphrates South-East to Ctesiphon which either falls or resists. Either way the Romans can only retreat back to Syria, harried all the way. Usually the Emperor dies or is killed on the way.

There is no way logistically to penetrate the Iranian heartlands for an infantry army. You need a mounted nomadic-type army for that...even cataphracts are no use to you.

Even Heraclius could only force a draw in 620...not win and occupy.

When the Arabs conquered Syria and Egypt though, cavalry did just fine, as did the Seljuk Turks after Manzikert in Anatolia.
 
Well I don't think the Romans will have any sort of cake walk with a war with a continuing Achaemenid Empire at all.

Remember Egypt will be part of that Empire, as will all of Anatolia and maybe Thrace and Macedonia. The enrichment of the Roman Republic that took place in OTL due the looting of Asia and capture of the Egyptian bread basket will not have taken place. Even Syria will be a Persian satrapy.

Even in our TL the Romans never did well against the Persians, as demonstrated in every Eastern campaign from Crassus to Julian. The Persians came within an ace of beating the East Romans in the Seventh century in alliance with the Avars. Only Heraclius turned the tables after a long debilitating and inconclusive war that opened the door for both empires to the Arabs.

I was going to say that a Persian victory presumably leads to a Persian renaissance of some sort. They won't just sit there, and let borders etc continue, they will hit out again - history teaches that they do when they can.

Thus, by the time that Rome or Carthage has risen to enough power to intervene in the Eastern Mediterranean, they might find that the Persians are on the Adriatic, or at least have client states in place across the area

It won't therefore be a question of Rome meeting the Persians once they've cleared up Greece, Anatolia etc, but of them meeting them in a purely European theatre


Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
if the persian empire invades greece again, and there is war, as in the citty states dont simply surender and become tributaries, there might be a few more termopiles and the empire loses again
then greeks reorganise again and invade again
it could go on for a long time

or if persia uses its position as a real regional superpower and dominates the egean and adriatic with diplomacy, trade and cultural exports, it might spread its influence as far as tracian and ilirian states
 

tenthring

Banned
Greece had a huge population surplus at the time of Alexander's conquest that it didn't have during the first Persian invasion. There is going to be no conquest of Greece. We forget how often simple population demographics determine the course of history. The Romans vs the Carthaginians is another good example. Have kids + feed them enough to survive = expanding power.
 
I'm not sure why people think that the defeat of what was (to the Persians, anyway) a minor pestilence was going to mean that Persia last for much longer or undergoes a renaissance. The Persian Empire was rather dangerously divided already even before Alexander came along - and the speed of its collapse, with satraps surrendering without a fight, most notably in Egypt - seems to indicate that provincial autonomy and loyalty were getting a bit too high for the Empire to last for that much longer.

We can also see what was happening in the Persian Empire in the 50 years before Alexander's conquest:

372BC - 362BC: War of the Satraps - Asia Minor revolts.
358BC: Artaxerxes III ascends to the throne and executes a large number of his family.
350sBC: Artaxerxes orders Asia Minor satraps to be disarmed. Lydia revolts.
343BC: After 60 years of de facto independence, Egypt is finally reconquered by the Persians. Phoenicia and Cyprus revolt.
338BC: Artaxerxes III murdered by Bagoas. Artaxerxes IV ascends to the throne. Egypt revolts.
336BC: Artaxerxes IV murdered by Bagoas, which extinguishes the line of Artaxerxse IV. Darius III ascends to the throne, and executes Bagoas. Philip II of Macedon invades and easily takes a portion of Western Asia Minor.
335BC: Egypt revolt crushed.
334BC: Alexander begins his invasion.

This is not a stable empire that Alexander is conquering - this is an Empire whose western subjects are, frankly, itching to get out of its rule, and where inter-elite competition was rampant. Without strong leadership to suppress revolts or reform the government, the Achaemenids were doomed to collapse eventually - Alexander only drove a particularly large and spiky nail into the coffin.

The consequences are obviously much stronger for the spread of Greek culture in the region, and most notably would affect aesthetics throughout Eastern Asia (since the Greco-Bactrians transmitted a lot of the Greek sculptural proficiency to India and then to China).
 
I think people seriously overestimate the fragility of the Persian Empire at this time. By Guagamela Alexander was far, far from a minor pestilence. If that's all he was, Darius would not have offered him everything west of the Euphrates, now would he? Even by the time of Issus, Alexander's threat was deemed important enough for Darius to raise a large army and march to meet him there. At Guagamela of course, Darius took his time assembling as large an army as he could in one place, with troops from all across the empire and personally lead it-again, not something you do if what is facing you is only a minor pestilence.

And the defections of satraps should not be seen as how close the Persian Empire was to crumbling on its own. You see, when the major army that is defending you in the area is defeated, and you have the choice between remaining loyal to a distant king and hope that the large enemy army in front of you somehow doesn't manage to take your city and satrapy, or decide to cut your losses and cozy up to the guy with the only army in town, the inherent selfishness and self preservation of people kicks in-especially when the conquerer is offering to let you keep your position as it was.


Furthermore, you have to take into consideration the prestige and legitimacy loss that the Great King losing large swathes of territory and two major battles personally, creates. Obviously Darius did not have the support of Ahura Mazda and was not fit to rule if the whole western half of his territory was lost and he lost two major battles himself. Meanwhile, you have this great conqueror who has won this territory and defeated him again and again, and people might start seeing where the wind is blowing and/or thinking maybe this guy is more fit to rule-after all, Alexander was portraying himself essentially as claiming Darius' throne, not destroying the Persian Empire.



To wrap up, there was little sign of imminent doom for the Persian Empire prior to Alexander's invasion. Were they on the decline? Absolutely. Was there shakeups and trouble brewing in the imperial court? Of course, but that was also present between the death of Cyrus and the rise of Darius I and it didn't signal the collapse of the Persian Empire.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top