WI: No conquest of Alexander the Great

What if Alexander the Great, never conquered anything.

Hypothetically, let’s say that Philip II still gets assassinated, but Alexander and his mother gets killed by loyal followers of Philip II, who place Alexander’s half brother, Philip III on the throne.

What butterfly effects could happen?
What would happen to Egypt?
What would happen the Achaemenid Persian Empire?
What would Countries be like without the Hellenization?
What would happen to Greece?
What would happen to Rome?
 
The butterfly effects would be huge. With Alexander dead, the Greek cities and Thracian and Illyrian tribes would rise up in revolt, and civil war will most likely ensue, especially if the other royals like Amyntas and Cynane are alive. I doubt Macedonia would be able to retain hegemony over Hellas. Meanwhile the Achaemenids would hold on, but I can't see them surviving much longer, since the empire was suffering constantly from revolts and central weakness. The Achaemenids will likely collapse, and Egypt will likely gain independence in the wake of a Persian collapse.

Without Hellenization the East may be a very different place than OTL. The Seleucid rulers of Syria invested heavily in the building of colonies and infrastructure in that region. This may result in a more impoverished Syria. No Hellenization means no Septuagint and no Maccabean revolt, butterflying away Christianity and Islam. No Hellenization would cause the east to develop differently in terms of culture. An example might be that the Buddha might not be physically represented until much later.

Rome might rise as a significant force, but Rome as a power could either follow a similar course as OTL, until it goes into the east, or it could be butterflied entirely. Overall you would see a very different world.
 
Last edited:
What if Alexander the Great, never conquered anything.

Hypothetically, let’s say that Philip II still gets assassinated, but Alexander and his mother gets killed by loyal followers of Philip II, who place Alexander’s half brother, Philip III on the throne.

What butterfly effects could happen?
What would happen to Egypt?
What would happen the Achaemenid Persian Empire?
What would Countries be like without the Hellenization?
What would happen to Greece?
What would happen to Rome?
Totally ASB. OTL Philip III here would never get the throne. If Alexander was killed together or after Philip II then you have two possible candidates for the succession:
a) Caranus aka the infant son of Philip II and his last wife and Queen Cleopatra Eurydice under the regency of Queen Eurydice and her uncle Attalus
b) Amyntas IV, nephew and son-in-law of Philip as he was son of Philip’s elder brother and predecessor Perdiccas and husband of Philip’s eldest daughter Cynane (he is the father of Arrhidaeus’ OTL wife).

In both cases the expedition in Persia would be most likely only slightly delayed as happened in OTL after Philip’s death (in OTL both Caranus and Amyntas were killed on order of Alexander and/or Olympias)
 
Last edited:
Xenophon's "Anabasis" and the high number of Greek mercenaries in Persia, "foreshadowed" the Greek invasion of Persia in a way. I think Macedonians or other Greeks would still attempt to conquer Persia, but may fail without the leadership of Alexander and his allies. The sheer luck Alexander had against a more powerful empire is unlikely to be repeated.

An ancient Mesopotamian paradigm of rulership would remain prominent in the Near East. Persian kings of kings would still be making the same kinds of references and allusions that the Neo-Babylonians did, which evolve over time. Without Seleucids and Parthians, a Sassanid-like "nationalism" is unlikely to arise later and Imperial Aramaic should survive longer unless Persian power structures are totally destroyed by a different invasion.

Anatolia would become an extension of Persia, as assimilated as the Iberian Peninsula was by the Romans.
 
Last edited:
Xenophon's Anabasis and the high number of Greek mercenaries in Persia, "foreshadowed" the Greek invasion of Persia in a way.
Not really. Philip's army had basically nothing to do with the Greek hoplites of Xenophon and the other mercenaries in Persian service; their armament was obviously completely different, but their manner of training and organization was completely different (that is, it existed), and they were drawn from a different population class in a society with a completely different structure. The original goal of the expedition across the Hellespont was to conquer Ionia and maybe set up some buffer areas in Anatolia. The conquest of Persia was astoundingly unlikely even with the Macedonian radical new model army, but with hoplites, it's not something that could be even contemplated by a reasonable person.
 
Not really. Philip's army had basically nothing to do with the Greek hoplites of Xenophon and the other mercenaries in Persian service; their armament was obviously completely different, but their manner of training and organization was completely different (that is, it existed), and they were drawn from a different population class in a society with a completely different structure. The original goal of the expedition across the Hellespont was to conquer Ionia and maybe set up some buffer areas in Anatolia. The conquest of Persia was astoundingly unlikely even with the Macedonian radical new model army, but with hoplites, it's not something that could be even contemplated by a reasonable person.
I didn't mean a full conquest, just some kind of invasion or mutiny, given the relatively frequent conflict between the Greek states and Persian Empire, both before and after the Greco-Persian Wars.

If the Persian Empire is in bad shape, then a Greek invasion attempt at the expected locations like Ionia or Cyprus, may escalate into an attempt at conquering large parts of the empire. Which isn't necessarily successful, all I'm saying is that it is a potential threat for the empire.
 
I suspect that the Achaemenid Empire would last longer, and potentially follow the pattern of Chinese empires in which dynasties change and there are periods of disunity but the idea of the empire endures.
 
This is huge, maybe too huge for this board. Here are the points that first come to mind:

1. The Persians never developed an answer to the hoplites, let alone the phalanx, and their shock tactic, except to hire Greek mercenaries. But earlier invasions of Persia -there was one by one of the Spartan kings- failed due to lack of Greek unity and/ or bad luck. Alexander needed luck too and there was no particular reason for the pattern of Greek armies penetrating ddep within the Persian empire and then having to retreat because of problems in Greece or their leader was killed just continuing.

2. There are lots of precedents for empires coming close to unravelling and then rallying into a "Eastern Han" or "Late Roman Empire" situation and continuing for several generations, and before Alexander, Persia looked to be following this particular pattern, evidence is the reign of Artaxerxes III.

3. Based on the earlier points, my guess is that a reformed Persian empire survives until the first century BC, though it could lose Ionia and Egypt like it had in the past, only to fall apart in about the same time and in the same manner as the Seleucid empire fell apart. Dynasties founded by Greek mercenaries could grab some parts, such as Egypt, as successor states, and Armenia, Pontus, the Parthians, and Surens would be other successor states.

4. More more limited Hellenic -Oriental cultural exchange and this would have major and unpredictable butterflies, especially as with the Abrahamic religions. There was an obvious Hellenic influence on Christianity, but also on rabbinical Judaism. On the life of Jesus (would He be butteflied away? He had no non-Jewish ancestors) no change if the high priests still have to go to a Roman official for the execution, otherwise they just stone Jesus to death themselves, but starting with the career of Paul there will be some changes. Bigger change is with Judaism with no Seleucids and maybe no Romans to emulate/ react against.

5. No Alexander founded cities. Probably the biggest change is no Antioch because with no Greek rulers of Syria there is no real need for a city in northern Syria closer to the coast than Alleppo. In other cases, cities already existing in 350 BC would take on the roles of their Alexandrine counterparts, eg Sais for Alexandria in Egypt and Babylon for Seleucia, but these cities would not be Greek. No library or museum in Alexandria, but I think a good deal of Alexandrine cultural achievements were stolen from other Greek cities, and Greek intellectual life if anything is more likely to be stronger if it is less concentrated in Alexandria.

6. Macedon becomes just one of a long line of Greek states to become the hegemon of Greece for awhile only for it to fall apart.

7. What happens with Rome is a huge issue. Probably no change up to 200 BC, though without the drain of colonists to the east, the Romans could well have had a stronger challenge from Greek soldiers aiding the Greek cities in Italy than they got IOTL. Once they finish with Carthage they still turn east, and the issue is whether the eastern frontier of the empire winds up in the same place without the Hellenic eastern monarchies. My guess is that the Romans will still take whatever they can grab. What would change is the administration of the eastern part of the empire, more use of Latin for administration instead of Greek and more Roman founded cities such as Caesarea in Palestine since they can't just set up in Alexander's cities.

8. There are changes with the histories of India and China, and this is the second biggest source of butterflies after the impact on the Abrahamic religions. Alexander settled a lot of Greek soldiers in Bactria/ Afghanistan and I don't see anyway to get anything like the Greco-Bactrian kingdoms without him. And the Greco-Bactrian kingdoms had some impact on the artistic style of India in particular, and a bigger impact on religion. They converted to Buddhism at the time where there was a reaction in favor of (an altered form of) Hinduism in India itself and played a big and maybe necessary role in transmitting Buddhism to China. This is more speculative, but they may also have transmitted Buddhist ideas westwards so they would wind up influence Greek philosophy and Christianity. There is also the question of how much Alexander influenced the founding of the Mauryan empire. Its really hard to know where to go with this because we don't have much information this this area of history.

My guess is that the butterflies really start to proliferate in the 4th century AD and make this timeline unrecognizable.
 
@Galba Otho Vitelius

I agree with some points, but a few counters or concurrent thoughts regarding some of what you mentioned.

1. I would not be so quick to assume that the Persian Empire lacked a counter to the Phalanx or generalized heavy infantry warfare. In the first conflicts between the Achaemenid forces and Alexander, the Persian forces nearly carried the day, most certainly. Had the Achaemenid imperial armies would have fared better had they faced poorer generals that followed your line of thought and assumed super heavy phalanxes were superior to their enemies and subsequently would have been routed or could have been much more easily. Alexander and more skilled Hellenic generals understood the importance of a combined arms in their warfare, utilizing light cavalry, elephants, archers, slingers and many other units to better support their phalanx lines and resist engulfment. It also is not necessarily a weakness of martial skill alone regarding the Achaemenids.

When we discuss the geopolitical results of certain conflicts, we always must remind ourselves that in the case of major empires, such as the Achaemenids, though they have vast resources, populaces and so forth, they also have expansive borders, frontiers, unlimited enemies and are disliked as hegemon. Empires such as these, require to station out their armies across vast lands, appease a massive number of people, protect every piece of land lest they lose respect and maintain a diverse set of imperial initiatives. They in essence, lack the initiative and the drive, not necessarily in a spiritual sense, but in materialistic sense that their size, structure and format cannot contain it at the moment, even with great visionary leaders. Meanwhile, states who are strong and smaller on the exterior of said empire, have all the benefits of power but none of its weaknesses and are much more ready to counter the large and weakening empire if need be.

There is also the point that the Achaemenid structure is perhaps an inferior system compared to later iterations and even its predecessors in terms of engendering an imperial complex that could weather martial conquest. One major weakness, is the Achaemenids, unlike their successors, the Seleucids, Arsacids and Sassanids, might have lacked a certain decentralized defense mechanism. By this, I refer to a way to perpetuate the dynastic or political agenda without the imperial army personally. In the Arsacid empire, their empire tended to be hemmed in from all sides at a near constant basis and despite emperors falling in battle, losing miserably and followed by a civil war that erupted immediately after, the Arsacid polity continued to endure and recover rapidly. Even in the last days of the Arsacid empire, the civil war between Artabanus IV and Vologases VI, the Arsacids were able to recover border areas lost to the Romans and defeated the Romans at Nisbis and seemed to be doing well should the civil war end. Had it not been for the incredible victory of Ardashir I over Artabanus IV (what at the time to many of the noble houses, must have been a fluke of monumental proportions), the Arsacids would most likely have endured the civil war and launched another counter against the Kushan and Romans who harried their flanks.

Sassanian imperial durability was similar. At may moments, the empire seemed to be in a situation far more grave than that of the Achaemenid crisis. The Hepthalite invasions was one such crisis that threatened the entire fabric of the system. Sassanid imperial armies were defeated in 484 under Peroz I and he was slain. The noble houses rallied together despite this and defeated the Hepthalite invasion and restored the Sassanian throne. Likewise, despite recent conflict between the nobles and the monarch, the Sassanian state was able to gather nobles to defeat the Gokturk invasion in the 580s. When rebellion from the Mihranid Bahram Chobin occurred, despite the tyranny, hostility and bloodlust of the emperor Hormizd IV, the Surenid noble house in launched a palace coup and instead of proclaiming a new polity, simply put a new Sassanian emperor on the throne and requested peace with the Mihranid clan rebels. To add, the Sassanian throne was able to then return to power, due greatly to much of the existing Dahae-Parthian nobles remaining unwilling to accept a new dynasty. The Achaemenid's lacked any of this sort of mechanism that would allow it to remain in power no matter the circumstances. Much of this, is that they lacked the robust dynastic nobility of the later Iranian empires.

Additionally, we may add that the trope is typically a story that the Achaemenid's aside from a few rulers, were known to rule through a positive patronage. That is, they treated their subjects well and gifted them varied liberties and autonomy and required only submission in a weak sense. This is positive for when you can defeat all external enemies. Yet it could become negative, if your rule is engendered only through friendship, as these things tend to be transient, especially when you lose two major battles in a row and are a massive empire. This is why when Alexander swept through the empire, most of the states simply reached agreements with Alexander and joined him, aside from Tyre, the far east and the Indus Valley states. Assyria certainly, for all of its mayhem and devastation, was a more durable empire generally than the Achaemenid. Assyrian policy neared the point of bringing terror and trembling, even to its allies and reminding its friends of the results of treachery. This meant that when the Assyrian empire was in complete and total disaster, the likes of which the Achaemenids had not tasted until its final days, Assyria was still able to fight viciously for at least 7 years (in just the small area of Assyria proper [the rest of Mesopotamia had fallen]!) and even in this weak stance, the Assyrian empire was still being supported by a myriad of vassals across the Levant and its large vassal of Egypt. Assyria brought fear to the post-Bronze Age Middle East, but this also allowed a greater stability for trade and their armies made many states comfortable and the idea that Assyria could lose a war and not recover just 20 years later, as they had done in the past, might have seemed impossible to the people of the time. It is most clear to us, that the same cannot be said of the Achaemenid empire.

2. If a continued Achaemenid empire occurs, they will eventually have to run into the inevitable road of their actions in Central Asia. Their prior two century expansion into the steppe had, alongside activities in China, had created the precedent for the creation of the first steppe empire, in the Xiongnu. This will become a massive issue for the Achaemenids as the steppes will churn more and more in the coming years and will spell great calamities if the Achaemenids do not prepare their eastern defenses. In otl, much of this expansion in the early phases, were curbed by the role the Seleucids and their Greek vassals, who played a role in constructing free cities across the east with large slave trading operations, militias and large walls which repelled the earliest rumblings from the Saka and other steppe peoples. In later times, the Greek state in Bactria aligned to the steppe Dahae (Arsacids) and conquered the Seleucid empire's eastern lands, who had overextended herself in the wars of the successors. Later, not even the Bactrian free cities, armies and Arsacid alliance were enough to quell the expansion of nomads from the north and east.
 
If the Romans still rise, I can see the Romans taking over Judea, Syria, and maybe a bit of coastal Anatolia, but I do think that with a Achaemenid Empire or different, Stronger Persian Dynasty, would be an obstacle going into inland Anatolia and definitely the Mesopotamia.
 
One interesting result is that Babylon almost certainly will remain the great city of Mesopotamia, which, together with the continued existence of Etemenanki, will likely strengthen the Mesopotamian religious tradition. This would extend the use of Sumerian and Akkadian cuneiform by temple scribes, and thus result in a greater quantity of religious and literary texts surviving and potentially being translated into Aramaic.
A pod in the 4th Century BCE would definitely butterfly Christianity, and could very well prevent the rise of Rome, then still only a minor city-state.
 
Top