WI Perdiccas III wasn't killed?

As background: Perdiccas III was the king of Macedonia before Phillip II. He was killed in a battle in Upper Macedonia in 359 BC and succeeded by his infant son Amyntas IV, with Phillip as regent. Phillip soon usurped the throne. Phillip, who had been been a hostage in Thebes and was mentored by the general and military innovator Epaminondas, reformed the Macedonian army and created the Macedonian phalanx and elite cavalry.

So what if Perdiccas III had lived a longer life, leaving Amyntas IV old enough to rule, meaning no Phillip II or Alexander the Great? How long would the Greeks keep destroying each other without Macedon unifying them? What would happen to the Persian Empire?
 
One would think that without a strong ruler the Persian empire, which was already stagnating, would collapse.
 
One would think that without a strong ruler the Persian empire, which was already stagnating, would collapse.

Persia seriously pulled herself together in the 340s, so this is by no means inevitable. On the other hand, rivals to her hegemony were emerging elsewhere on the fringes of her Empire, in the Caucasus and Africa as well as the Balkans, so Persian collapse could still happen in some form or another.

Regarding Greece, sooner of later, the Theban hegemony will come to an end- I'm guessing we'll see a resurgent Athens, though whether Sparta will bounce back after the catastrophes of the 360sBC is dubious. Perhaps a hitherto relatively quiet city state, like Corinth, Byzantium or Miletus will rise to prominence in the Hellenic world.

Rome will probably continue to gobble up Italy, though the whole system of Roman life will be altered without the experience of a Hellenistic East to contend with. Rome's still quite likely to end up as the hegemon of the Greek city states though, I suspect, unless Athens, Thebes, or someone else can unite Greece under her sovereignty to become a proper alternative to the Republic.
 
Persia seriously pulled herself together in the 340s, so this is by no means inevitable. On the other hand, rivals to her hegemony were emerging elsewhere on the fringes of her Empire, in the Caucasus and Africa as well as the Balkans, so Persian collapse could still happen in some form or another.

Regarding Greece, sooner of later, the Theban hegemony will come to an end- I'm guessing we'll see a resurgent Athens, though whether Sparta will bounce back after the catastrophes of the 360sBC is dubious. Perhaps a hitherto relatively quiet city state, like Corinth, Byzantium or Miletus will rise to prominence in the Hellenic world.

Rome will probably continue to gobble up Italy, though the whole system of Roman life will be altered without the experience of a Hellenistic East to contend with. Rome's still quite likely to end up as the hegemon of the Greek city states though, I suspect, unless Athens, Thebes, or someone else can unite Greece under her sovereignty to become a proper alternative to the Republic.

I was mainly referring to the different dangers to her frontiers. Sure, she could easily stay together, and keep Mesopotamia, but would they be able to keep their Anatolian, Levantine, and Egyptian conquests, along with the ones along the border with the Scythians?

Sparts is indeed doomed. Miletus may have to come into conflict with Persia, or it could carve out a hegemony in the Aegean. Byzantion is in an excellent position, but I believe they had problems with the Thracians?

That brings up the Gauls, as well.


Yeah, Rome will continue to gobble up everything in its path, though they'll have more problems in Asia minor without Pergamum's support. Then again, Macedonia and Epirus are gone..
 
I think that without Philip of Macedon, the Macedonian monarchy is unable to effectively unite that "country". Macedon would continue to act as a buffer state between the Greek poleis to the South and the Barbarians to the North. That would leave the Greeks another half century or so to battle each other futilely in the pursuit of Hegemony. Persia would probably continue to rule its vast empire, probably dealing with rebellious satraps.

Well before the Romans become strong enough to threaten the Greek poleis, the Celtic Gauls should start shaking things up 280 AD. Without even a weakened Macedonian Empire to oppose them, I think the Celts would possibly subjugate the Macedonians, Thracians and perhaps even the Epirotes. They would probably not succeed in making inroads into Greece proper, let alone Anatolia. So no Galatians in Anatolia, but possibly a lasting Celtic presence in the Balkans.

What would be very interesting for me would be what would happen when Rome became powerful enough to push east after subduing the Italian peninsula (assuming that even happens). As the Romans were decidedly less Hellenic than the Macedonians, the Greeks MIGHT find it in themselves to unite against the common enemy, and perhaps form a second Pan-Hellenic league. As for the Persians, they would likely clash with the Maurayans on their far eastern frontier, and eventually the Parthians over the next century or so.
 
Top