WI No (or Less) Alexander the Great

@Onkel Williams Short answer, it's one thing to march an army in and conquer a place, it's a whole other thing to actually put a large, diverse empire together, a lesson the successors to Alexander learned all too well; leaving aside *Persia proper* and India helps some here, but doesn't fully solve the dilemma.

Mesopotamia is a long way from the Macedonian homelands, and mountained or not, it has a long border that the Greeks have to protect if they annex it outright; I think @CassiusBSVP has the right idea, an independent buffer state makes more sense. And even Egypt should not be underestimated -- remember, they managed to kick out the Persians for six decades. Then again, that was with Greek alliances; I'll admit, preventing their Hellenization following their re-liberation may not be preventable.

OTL's Alexander the Great managed to pull it off.
 
OTL's Alexander the Great managed to pull it off.
Pulled it off? As in his empire didn't implode on itself in his short lifetime, only tearing itself apart when his body was barely cold? Phillip II had only just managed to the Macedonian Empire to hold together when it was just Greece; getting your armies to unite under your leadership with military expansion works for a little while, but whether it's in the Syrian Desert, the Zargos Mountains, or the Indus River Valley, the conquests have to stop sometime, and then you've got to find a way to stick your conquests together. And marriages will only do so much.

Really, this shouldn't be too controversial; Alexander was a twenty-something year old who though he was a demigod, saying he bit off more than his empire coukd chew in the medium to long run seems pretty straightforward to me.
 
@Onkel Williams Short answer, it's one thing to march an army in and conquer a place, it's a whole other thing to actually put a large, diverse empire together, a lesson the successors to Alexander learned all too well; leaving aside *Persia proper* and India helps some here, but doesn't fully solve the dilemma.

Mesopotamia is a long way from the Macedonian homelands, and mountained or not, it has a long border that the Greeks have to protect if they annex it outright; I think @CassiusBSVP has the right idea, an independent buffer state makes more sense. And even Egypt should not be underestimated -- remember, they managed to kick out the Persians for six decades. Then again, that was with Greek alliances; I'll admit, preventing their Hellenization following their re-liberation may not be preventable.
I think we underestimate how similar Alexander actually was to his father. Sure Alexander took his fathers grandiose ambitions to its logical conclusion, but Phillip was hardly the cautious ruler who would stop at the borders of Anatolia when he's riding high on success. Now there's an argument to be made that he would be less successful to start with than Alexander but assuming he's so successful that the Persians are disintegrating west of Mesopotamia, Phillip is the kind of guy who's bold enough to at least press into Mesopotamia and definitely try and bag Egypt.
 
I think we underestimate how similar Alexander actually was to his father. Sure Alexander took his fathers grandiose ambitions to its logical conclusion, but Phillip was hardly the cautious ruler who would stop at the borders of Anatolia when he's riding high on success. Now there's an argument to be made that he would be less successful to start with than Alexander but assuming he's so successful that the Persians are disintegrating west of Mesopotamia, Phillip is the kind of guy who's bold enough to at least press into Mesopotamia and definitely try and bag Egypt.

However, Philip was also the origin AFAIK of the idea of the Philosopher King in his discourse with Plato, arguing that he had to be King of all his peoples rather than simply the Greeks with Persians as slaves (I think he may have picked the idea up when working as a mercenary).

Meanwhile, Alexander - unlike Philip (who was made a God), he had a God-Complex, this is known. Hence the "Imma not stop" - honestly, against stronger opponents, whilst Alexander was brilliant, I think he'd risk being called "the Reckless".

I'd agree with a Philip taking Egypt though, but he'd certainly be putting the administrative elements together, and trying to assimilate the Hellenic League right fast. (In fact, it would not surprise me if he did that by force - before or after an Egyptian conquest.)
 
Phillip is the kind of guy who's bold enough to at least press into Mesopotamia and definitely try and bag Egypt.
I'd agree with a Philip taking Egypt though...
- before or after an Egyptian conquest.
Well, I was first struck by absurdity of the Macedonians not conquering Egypt.
But actually that is the point of this thread.
That's what differentiate it from hundreds of similar threads.
You gotta try something new from time to time.

So we have to live with that.
And I guess that's doable.
Phillip (or Alexander, under this scenario it's not that important) dies after conquering Anatolia and the Northern Syria. What is important is that there's a good old succession crisis after the death of the Macedon king, whoever he is.
So there are a few pretenders to the throne, some using some figureheads from the old dynasty, some proclaiming themselves Macedon kings. In Macedon and in her new Empire everybody is busy by fighting.
So the Persian Empire and the independent Egypt have some breathing space to consolidate.

At the end of the terrible civil war the Macedonian Empire stays like the topic starter wants - holding Macedon, Greece, Anatolia and the Northern Syria. It doesn't disintegrate because it's not big enough, which is kind of advantage in this sense - compact and manageable.

After severe bloodletting the Macedon Empire is strong enough to hold together but not that strong to continue the conquest of Egypt and the Persian Empire; and soon the Celts would appear from the North to keep the Macedonians busy.

As for Egypt... if they get 30-40 thousand local soldiers trained in a Macedonian style, they'd be a fource to be reckoned with. If the Ptolemaids did it in OTL, why couldn't the native Egyptian dynasty do it in ATL. Because of the Macedonian refugees from their civil war there won't be lack of the Macedonian military instructors in the region willing to get hired.
Getting the locals trained is much cheaper, so the idea is attractive.
And, ye, let's give Egypt the Southern Syria: every independent Egypt is paranoid about Syria, as it is the natural doorway into Egypt; and keeping your door open is always a bad idea...
 
Yeah, I think it's becoming clear to me Egypt is inevitably going to be Hellenized to at least some extent if they break from Achaemenids in any fashion -- at the very least, they'll be bringing in a sizable number of Macedonian/Greek mercenaries who will end up playing a central role in the government, most likely producing their own pharaohs before too long; and its quite possible that even that can't be managed, and Egypt will inevitably fall to the Macedonian Empire. While I have a preference to less Hellenization rather than more (to distinguish it from OTL), I have to admit here that that's just a preference at the end of the day, and may not be plausible, given the temptation that the riches of the Nile will prove to a Macedonian Empire that actually has its shit together.
 
Yeah, I think it's becoming clear to me Egypt is inevitably going to be Hellenized to at least some extent if they break from Achaemenids in any fashion -- at the very least, they'll be bringing in a sizable number of Macedonian/Greek mercenaries who will end up playing a central role in the government, most likely producing their own pharaohs before too long; and its quite possible that even that can't be managed, and Egypt will inevitably fall to the Macedonian Empire. While I have a preference to less Hellenization rather than more (to distinguish it from OTL), I have to admit here that that's just a preference at the end of the day, and may not be plausible, given the temptation that the riches of the Nile will prove to a Macedonian Empire that actually has its shit together.

I'm not sure that it is guaranteed (besides possibly militarily). Under the right conditions (i.e. a Conservative Philip and No/Lesser Alexander), we could see an Egyptian 'Renaissance', it relies on Macedonia being happy with Anatolia.

A possibility is if Alexander really was heads and tails above his father, and Philip doesn't do well outside of Anatolia, then the Achemenids may well be bloodied and unable to keep their satraps, and Egypt pulls away and allies with the Macedonian Empire. It may hire some Greek mercenaries to train their own forces, but outside that they could be culturally assertive - pull the whole "Neither Greek nor Persian, but Egyptian" line. It would really come down to how conservative Philip is feeling. If he'd rather prevent Alexander or Perdiccan succession crises, he may well decide to stop in Anatolia, settle it, and leave the next round (if it happens), to Alexander, or a grandson. If that happens, then Egypt can assert control in the Levant, and pledge to an alliance against Persia - which in and of itself could be a good deal for Philip, as it means any Persian attack must come through mountains to the South and East - or risk being flanked. Meanwhile all that northern territory filled with Getae and Illyrians can be conquered and secured too, to help expand Macedonia Proper, and protect it from the (likely present) raids.

That leaves Egypt to adopt Macedonian military tactics, dominate (if successful) the Phoenicians, and then focus on pushing south along the Nile. Meanwhile, Philip can buy ships upon ships of grain to fund settlement of Antolia and Thrace with Macedonians and Greeks. When Alexander becomes King (if someone else doesn't replace him mind), he might insist on Egyptian assistance, which is almost a given to be supplied if we see an alt-Thebes.
 
Top