WI Philippe II is not assassinated in 336 BC

Firstly, the Athenians came really close to winning in Sicily and had incredibly stupd commanders. And Philip will have better cavalry and better commanders than the Athenians did anyway. The hard part of Sicilian conquest is to keep from getting entangled with Carthage, I'd think. As DG says, Sicily might make a good conquest for logisitical reasons.

Also, didn't Alexander accuse the Persians of plotting his father's assassination and use that as part of the reason for his assualt? I seem to remember that while Philip's army is in Asia Minor, a full on war with Persia is yet to come. Without the assassination, Philip may bide his time to find a more convienient casus belli, as he did in his wars in Greece.

I agree Nicomacheus... If Sicily gets in line with Carthage then Alexander has an enemy on his rear and without Sicilian grain he would ran out of supplies soon... He has to rush to Egypt fast so he can set up a new supply base there... I wonder how will Carthage react if after Sicily (which would have given them enough supplies and a naval base) to the conquest of Egypt...
Would they felt strong enough to attack Alexander there?
 
Did some reading on Wikipedia to brush up: OTL the League of Corinth elected Philip Hegemon. Wikipedia also seems to think that this vote was for command of the Greek invasion of Persia. When Philip died, Alexander first had to subdue Thebes and Athebs. At first, both cities submited, but when Alexander was in Thrace conquering the area to ensure supply lines for the invasion, they revolted again. This led to Alexander's destrution of Thebes. Alexander is confirmed as hegemon of the Greeks and leader of the invasion of Persia, but there doesn't appear to be a pressing need to swoop across the hellespont immediately.

All of this doesn't happen without the assassination.

Also, re-reading the accounts of Issus, I'm more convinced that Philip accept the offer.

One thing I'm wondering is does Philip take his glory-hound of a son on the conquests? A few years earlier when Philip attended the seige at Byzantium (a failed effort), Alexander was regent at Pylla. Perhaps Philip leaves Alexander in Greece and goes east. Alexander gets power hungry and mounts his own invasion of Sicily.
 
Wouldnt this have provoked the wrath of Philip? He would felt endangered by his own son... He might have thought that Alexander gathers power to usurp his crown...

Oh yes, it would. But that's the fun part. I'm thinking that Alexander may be trying to accrue his own power base in the event that Philip's second marriage bears fruit. He might be smart and try to get Philip's approval; in the event of an earlier Macedonian conquest of Sicily and a subsequent revolt / alliance with Carthage, Alexander's request may be honored to relieve the supply lines.
 
Macedonian Kingdom collapses in civil war and Darius III counter-attacks???
The (Achaemenid) Empire strikes back!!!!

Leaving room for Alexander, in alliance with his uncle King Alexander of Epirus to defend Greece against the Persians. The Achaemenids are driven back to Asia Minor, but then peace is made. Alexander looks around for more conquests.
 
Leaving room for Alexander, in alliance with his uncle King Alexander of Epirus to defend Greece against the Persians. The Achaemenids are driven back to Asia Minor, but then peace is made. Alexander looks around for more conquests.

After conquering Sicily the infant Roman Republic falls...
 
No, it's true. In Ab Urbe Condita he has a little digression about, basically, "WI Alexander went east." He decides that the Romans would have won. So, in fact, the first ever AH was a romanwank. :D

I (as would any self-respecting alternate historian) knew that!!!
 
Alexander gets power hungry and mounts his own invasion of Sicily.

If Alexander had tried that then not only would he have seriously pissed off Philip - possibly irrevocably - but in all likelihood the Philipine settlement in mainland Greece would fall apart.

Or, to put it another way, with precisely what force are you expecting him to mount this invasion with?

Assuming Alexander is appointed regent, he'd have to divide the troops that Philip has left him to keep Greece quiet, (itself a pretty fractional amount compared to Phillip's main force - when Agis III got uppity in OTL, Antipater had to drum up a load of Thessalian mercenaries financed on the basis of Alexander's war booty) probably leaving the bulk of them back in Macedonia. He'd then have to somehow drum together a reasonably decent navy. (Macedonia's was piss poor, so he'd have to somehow presumably convince Athens - which hated Macedonia - to lend him theirs for Syracuse Mk II).

Now, even assuming all this happens, and that this force isn't massacred on arrival by whatever men the Syracusan Oligarchy can muster, and that he somehow manages to take one of the most defensible cities in the Western Med, he'd still have the problem of supply, garrisons, the rest of the Sicilian cities, possibly Carthage if it feels ragy, the possibly fatal anger of Phillip, the likelihood of Agis III deciding to throw his lot in, maybe Athens as well, and a multitude of other problems.

Nonsense on stilts, I tells ya.
 
Last edited:
btw, I'm not even sure about Alexander becoming regent. Does anyone know if Phillip made any provision for this before he died? Alexander had been regent before, when Philip was besieging Byzantium, but that doesn't neccessarily mean he would be again; I have a feeling it's more likely that Phillip may take him with him precisely to prevent the sort of suggestions some people here are making.

Philip would have wanted exactly what Alexander wanted and got in Antipater - somebody who was reliable (In someone of Antipater's age, ambition will probably already be on the wane) and who was prepared to sit down in Macedonia and deal with the Greek cities if they got any ideas into their little heads. (In this TL, you have Athens and Sparta AND Thebes still in play.)

I'm sure the last thing he would want would be somebody who was at risk of trying to to privately re-ennact the Trojan War through some barmpot expedition to Sicily.
 
Last edited:
btw, I'm not even sure about Alexander becoming regent. Does anyone know if Phillip made any provision for this before he died? Alexander had been regent before, when Philip was besieging Byzantium, but that doesn't neccessarily mean he would be again; I have a feeling it's more likely that Phillip may take him with him precisely to prevent the sort of suggestions some people here are making.

Philip would have wanted exactly what Alexander wanted and got in Antipater - somebody who was reliable (In someone of Antipater's age, ambition will probably already be on the wane) and who was prepared to sit down in Macedonia and deal with the Greek cities if they got any ideas into their little heads. (In this TL, you have Athens and Sparta AND Thebes still in play.)

I'm sure the last thing he would want would be somebody who was at risk of trying to to privately re-ennact the Trojan War through some barmpot expedition to Sicily.

All true, particularly the part about needing an army and a navy. I grant it's probably is a dead letter. I got the idea because Philip had left Alexander as regent when Alexander was younger, though presumably because Philip wasn't going very far away.
 
btw, with respect of a potential future heir, probably one of either two things is going to happen:

1) Phillip is going to live another twenty years or so, and the boy is going to come of age, Alexander does something impulsive and is executed;

or

2) Phillip will die before the boy comes of age, in which case the lad will almost without a doubt be sidelined and eventually executed as Amyntas IV was by Phillip/Alexander. Alexander becomes King.

Of course, it doesn't neccessarily have to be either of those - Alexander may die of natural causes relatively young, somebody else may contrive to usurp the throne - but those are the two main outcomes that I see.

Basically, if you want to be dead certain that Philip's hypo-heir inherits, then you have to have Philip living at least into his sixties and benefiting from at least another eighteen years of life - which I don't see as by any means automatic, if not actually as quite improbable. In that respect, I think 2) is more realistic.
 
Last edited:
Yeh not bad - quite enjoyed, although i feel sure carthage wouldn't just roll over as a vassal state quite so easily
 
Top