WI: No Hellenistic Period/No Alexander

What if there just was no Alexander The Great? He dies young, and whoever succeeds Philip II just... isn't Alexander.

I'm sure Macedon would be a strong power on its own, with or without him, but would it have the drive and ability to conquer Persia without him?

More to the point, what if Macedon just fails in conquering Persia? Perhaps the conquest stops on its tracks on Anatolia, or the Greeks revolt against Macedon and keep it occuppied.

How does the Ancient World develop in the centuries after, without an Hellenistic Age?

How long do the Achaeminids survive?

Cultural butterflies?
 
Hmmm the persian empire despite its portrayal was fairly better at governing than the Greeks ever did and had a better grasp at the various cultures that made their empire and managed to repeatly beat back the various steppes tribes coming down from the north.

1. A far, far more stable middle east.
2. Diadochi wars never happen
3.the romans wouldn’t have been able to take advantage of weakened diadochi so no roman conquest of Egypt and the near east.
4. May have evolved into a different Sassanid empire and will be far more stronger opposition to the Muslim invasions
 
Hmmm the persian empire despite its portrayal was fairly better at governing than the Greeks ever did and had a better grasp at the various cultures that made their empire and managed to repeatly beat back the various steppes tribes coming down from the north.

1. A far, far more stable middle east.
2. Diadochi wars never happen
3.the romans wouldn’t have been able to take advantage of weakened diadochi so no roman conquest of Egypt and the near east.
4. May have evolved into a different Sassanid empire and will be far more stronger opposition to the Muslim invasions
There'll not be Sassanids or Islam, about 1000 years after the divergence. There may or may not be a Roman empire.
More interestingly, the Achaemenid empire may stabilise enough that it survives an eventual change of dynasty and becomes an enduring cultural/political structure, like a western China. That would be very interesting.
 
There'll not be Sassanids or Islam, about 1000 years after the divergence. There may or may not be a Roman empire.
More interestingly, the Achaemenid empire may stabilise enough that it survives an eventual change of dynasty and becomes an enduring cultural/political structure, like a western China. That would be very interesting.

The Iranian Plateau, much like China, has been home to sucessive dynasties OTL since the Achaemenids, so this actually sounds really plausible. (In fact, many did claim heritage from them)

Places like Egypt and Anatolia will remain at the fringes and be independent, but I wonder if a longer lasting Achaeminid empire could consider Mesopotamia and other lands part of Persia proper.
 
There'll not be Sassanids or Islam, about 1000 years after the divergence. There may or may not be a Roman empire.
More interestingly, the Achaemenid empire may stabilise enough that it survives an eventual change of dynasty and becomes an enduring cultural/political structure, like a western China. That would be very interesting.
Well if the romans don’t aggressively expand east I can see synthesis of cultures in the borders, the persians were perfectly happy governing their territories and not bothering anyone, people forget that the invasion of Greece was in response to Greek agitators in Anatolia wreaking havok by formenting rebellion and sending armies into Anatolia, thats where Xenophon’s army was in fact after that they were perfectly happy watching the greeks tear eachother to pieces with only a bit of a nudge and some gold to keep them fighting and unlike Greeks they understood that the people they ruled over were many many different cultures and the way of governing them always differs from region to region the only greek states that survived for any foreseeable time adopted local customs like the Ptolemys and the Indo-greek kingdoms
 
I would think much of Anatolia would also be absorbed into the Greater Iran that endures, there was a significant Persian aristocracy in Anatolia, temples to Persian gods like Anahita, and the Achaemenid pseudo-feudal manor system long outlasted the Achaemenids (Marek, In the Land of a Thousand Gods: A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World)
I do not know about Syria though. Given that the Arascids and Sassanids also controlled Mesopotamia and considered it an integral part of their empire, I would feel comfortable saying it would remain part of Greater Iran. As far as I know, Phoenicia was fairly loyal. Israel/Judaea as well.
 
Hmmm the persian empire despite its portrayal was fairly better at governing than the Greeks ever did and had a better grasp at the various cultures that made their empire and managed to repeatly beat back the various steppes tribes coming down from the north.

1. A far, far more stable middle east.
2. Diadochi wars never happen
3.the romans wouldn’t have been able to take advantage of weakened diadochi so no roman conquest of Egypt and the near east.
4. May have evolved into a different Sassanid empire and will be far more stronger opposition to the Muslim invasions

Why would this prevent roman conquest?
I agree that with less helenistic influence rome will be different - but initially not that much and especially nothing has changed in regards of Rome's ability to conquer.

Another effect would be less money circulating - small side effect of Alexander's conquest as the Achaeminids were pretty happy to sit on their huge amount of collected gold which Alexander dumped on the economy.
 
An interesting side-effect is that Babylon will likely survive without Alexander. Without Etemenanki being torn down it'd remain an important religious site, and without Seleukeia-Ctestephon being built it'd remain the primary administrative centre of Southern Mesopotamia.
 
For one, we'd lose pretty much every proper idea of how to date events in indian antiquity- without greek accounts we have little to go by when it comes to dating the mauryans. Actually, without the power vacuum in the northwest left by Alexander, Chandragupta Maurya might never find the opportunity to displace the Nandas and found the Mauryan empire. Depending on your view on who Kautilya was you've butterflied away the entirety of our knowledge on Indian politics, the largest empire in indian history, possibly weakened Buddhism internationally. Taking way the hellenistic intellectual influence as well, Indian history is radically changed.

Most probably the republican tribes of the Panjab survive for a fair bit longer, and a different dynasty arrives in the Magadhan empire- whether it manages to be quite as successful as the Mauryans is debatable. What would be interesting is a republican tribe managing to pull a rome in the indus and conquer and institute a republic in Magadha, or alternatively, conquer some of the Achaemenids territory from the other way around, seeing as they like the Nandas were fragile anyway as far as i understand it.
 
Why would this prevent roman conquest?
I agree that with less helenistic influence rome will be different - but initially not that much and especially nothing has changed in regards of Rome's ability to conquer.

Another effect would be less money circulating - small side effect of Alexander's conquest as the Achaeminids were pretty happy to sit on their huge amount of collected gold which Alexander dumped on the economy.
1. The persian empire during its heyday was able to quickly muster hundreds of thousands, while also being generally stable means the romans have far less chances of taking advantage of the situation.

2. Every time the Romans/ Byzantines had warred with the Persian/Sassanids all of their wars have been inconclusive with the closest they romans came to conquering Mesopotamia during the reign of emperor Trajan and that province only lasted 2 years before it was reconquered again.

4. They always stalemated eachother right up to thw point where they ended up using Armenia as their go between to keep the peace as both recognised that warring against eachother for the most part was a complete waste of time.

MAYBE the Romans can make gains by encouraging rebellions in Ionia and then sending roman troops to pacify the area but it will ended being the most hardest war they will ever face in their existence as they meet a nation on equal footing as them
 
I'd be curious to know what would happen to Egypt. In OTL the priestly class welcomed Alexander as a liberator, thanks to his patronage of the Egyptian religion. If the Achaemenid Empire survives, I wonder if the Egyptians will be able to muster the resources to throw off Persian rule, and if a new native dynasty will arise to rule as Pharaohs. No city of Alexandria of course.
 

jocay

Banned
I'd be curious to know what would happen to Egypt. In OTL the priestly class welcomed Alexander as a liberator, thanks to his patronage of the Egyptian religion. If the Achaemenid Empire survives, I wonder if the Egyptians will be able to muster the resources to throw off Persian rule, and if a new native dynasty will arise to rule as Pharaohs. No city of Alexandria of course.

The 30th dynasty had some temporary success in winning Egyptian independence and keeping the Persians away for a time. Only a few years prior to Alexaander's arrival, a figure named Khabash led an unsuccessful revolt against the Persians. Prior Egyptian rulers had made use of Greek and Anatolian mercenaries to help in these endeavors. Alexandria remains otherwise an unremarkable Egyptian fishing village but there is already a Greek presence in the cities of Canopus, Heracleion, and Naucratis. TTL Egypt may not be as Hellenized as Ptolemaic Egypt was but perhaps it becomes influenced by Greek culture the way Rome was and becomes something distinct.
 
1. The persian empire during its heyday was able to quickly muster hundreds of thousands, while also being generally stable means the romans have far less chances of taking advantage of the situation.

2. Every time the Romans/ Byzantines had warred with the Persian/Sassanids all of their wars have been inconclusive with the closest they romans came to conquering Mesopotamia during the reign of emperor Trajan and that province only lasted 2 years before it was reconquered again.

4. They always stalemated eachother right up to thw point where they ended up using Armenia as their go between to keep the peace as both recognised that warring against eachother for the most part was a complete waste of time.

MAYBE the Romans can make gains by encouraging rebellions in Ionia and then sending roman troops to pacify the area but it will ended being the most hardest war they will ever face in their existence as they meet a nation on equal footing as them

1. It was not an accident that Alexander could conquer the east. Macedon - an arguably much weaker power than Rome - was able to destroy them. I pretty sure that Rome can wrestle their mediterranean provinces away at the very least. The question is if Rome wants to do it.

2. Except the romans never warred with the persians. They warred with the parthians and the sassanians. Both Empire was based around the parthian nobility - the former fully and the latter mostly. They changed warfare in Persia. So does that still happen? Also the parthians and persians can be entangled in a pretty long conflict that Rome could use to its advantages.

4. That stalemate happened mostly around the OTL border Area. If they are fighting in Anatolia or Egypt the Iranians will have a much harder time than OTL: The things is that rome can ship his forces there from Italy. The core of the Persians was the iranian plateu - that is a much longer travel on land.

I agree it wont be an easy fight and Rome might not be willing to pay the price of those conquest unless he thinks its worth it. Without Alexandewr taking the gold of the persian Empire and dumping it on the economy the east will be much poorer compared to the incredible riches of OTL and that might mitigate the appetite of Rome to the point they stay away.

Also dont forget that the OP had only butterflied Alexander and he supposed that the macedonians were still able to wrestle control of at least Anatolia from the Persians. So stirring up the Ionic cities doesnt make sense.

And finally in the ancient world Rome was an absolute beast. It had an highly efficient and strong military and incredible manpower reserves - emphasis on the latter. See the 2nd punic war: which ancient power would have been able to keep fighting after that thrashing they got? The Persians were done in by 3 big battles OTL - and thats with Alexander taking the detour in Egypt and giving time to gather forces. As much bigger and more populous as Persia might be the ability of Rome to raise new armies was unrivaled for a very long time.
 
This would be interesting. In my view, there would be three powers after the dust settles: Macedon, Persia, and Egypt. Of course, Persia could succeed in holding Egypt or Macedon could conquer it, but it seemed like Egypt was a fairly rebellious province, and with Macedonian control over Anatolia, the hold on Syria and Armenia is threatened. Each power would be under something of self-rule, with Persia ruling from Pars, Egypt ruling from the Nile, and Macedon ruling from Macedonia as powerbases, rather than having he situation of foreign conquerors ruling a conquered populace, which would have implications for state formation and stability as well as on the culture of these states. Hellenistic culture would also be far less widespread than IOTL. IOTL, Seleucid artifacts and cultural influences were found as far east as the Han Empire and Maurya Empire, and were large influences in Rome and Parthia. ITTL, Persia and Egypt block the way to he east for direct cultural diffusion by a ruling elite, though Hellene traders could always be a soft influence.

1. It was not an accident that Alexander could conquer the east. Macedon - an arguably much weaker power than Rome - was able to destroy them. I pretty sure that Rome can wrestle their mediterranean provinces away at the very least. The question is if Rome wants to do it.

2. Except the romans never warred with the persians. They warred with the parthians and the sassanians. Both Empire was based around the parthian nobility - the former fully and the latter mostly. They changed warfare in Persia. So does that still happen? Also the parthians and persians can be entangled in a pretty long conflict that Rome could use to its advantages.

4. That stalemate happened mostly around the OTL border Area. If they are fighting in Anatolia or Egypt the Iranians will have a much harder time than OTL: The things is that rome can ship his forces there from Italy. The core of the Persians was the iranian plateu - that is a much longer travel on land.

I agree it wont be an easy fight and Rome might not be willing to pay the price of those conquest unless he thinks its worth it. Without Alexandewr taking the gold of the persian Empire and dumping it on the economy the east will be much poorer compared to the incredible riches of OTL and that might mitigate the appetite of Rome to the point they stay away.

Also dont forget that the OP had only butterflied Alexander and he supposed that the macedonians were still able to wrestle control of at least Anatolia from the Persians. So stirring up the Ionic cities doesnt make sense.

And finally in the ancient world Rome was an absolute beast. It had an highly efficient and strong military and incredible manpower reserves - emphasis on the latter. See the 2nd punic war: which ancient power would have been able to keep fighting after that thrashing they got? The Persians were done in by 3 big battles OTL - and thats with Alexander taking the detour in Egypt and giving time to gather forces. As much bigger and more populous as Persia might be the ability of Rome to raise new armies was unrivaled for a very long time.

Rome will not necessarily rise, nor gain the hegemonic role it did ITTL. The Romans still have to deal with the Samnites, from whom they learned the manipular formations that served them well in defeating the more cumbersome phalanx. IOTL the Latin rebellion and 1st and 2nd Samnite wars were not walks in the park for Rome (Claudine forks, for example). Even if they beat the Samnites, they may have to face invasion from a Hellene successor state (Epirus might not invade ITTL, but who knows, if an adventurer usurps the Macedonian throne and decides to protect Megas Hellas, that may not bode well for Rome). Then the Romans may have to deal with Carthage for supremacy over the Tyrrhenian, Sicily, and the western Mediterranean, and the Carthaginians were pounding them pretty hard before they went down. Then Rome has to surmount internal issues, like restructuring its armies to accommodate a growing state. Rome has to somehow draw itself into eastern conflicts: remember that Rome actually initially had wanted little to do with the east, and it was only he combined fractiousness and disorder prevailing there combined with Macedonia’s inability to submit as a peaceful client that drew Romans into the east. Rome liked the tax revenue and plunder of course, but she did attempt to withdraw from Macedonia a few times ITTL before giving up and getting involved in the Hellenistic world. ITTL, with a stronger and more orderly Macedonia, who’s to say such a defeat and annexation would happen? Who’s to say that the Persian state would be in the exact situation the Seleucids were in, with decreasing control over the east, where their control was weaker, and a Parthian threat afflicting them at the same time leagues of Hellene states and Rome defeated and stalled them in the west? Who’s to say that a native-ruled Egypt won’t become confident enough in itself to fight off attempts to subdue or subjugate it? States never develop in a vacuum, and there is no guarantee that a state would follow the same course it did IOTL even with small initial changes. Rome will not rise because it did IOTL, it will rise due to a combination of internal and external factors as well as sheer chance, all of which cannot be taken for granted in any timeline, including our own.
 
Top