What if King Phillip II of Macedon had Survived?
- Thread starter Shogun
- Start date
Philip was certainly competent millitarily, but I don't think he had quite the millitary genius that his son did. In this scenario, I can see Philip settling for Persian Anatolia, and maybe the Levant; setting up a puppet king in Egypt, and leaving the rest of Persia to fester. When Alexander eventually becomes King, in around 325BC, he may either choose to finish off Persia, or to go west, and attack Carthage.
That's my spin on it, anyway.
That's my spin on it, anyway.
The accusations that Alexander was involved in the murder don't seem to have arisen until the 2nd or 3rd centuries A.D., in the accounts of the Roman historian, Justin.
The problem with your scenario is that Philip was trumpeting the upcoming Persian campaign as a "War of Revenge" against Persia for it's invasion of Greece and the burning of Athens in the 480s BC. There was no way he was going to not invade Persia itself.
I think Philip was quite good enough to beat Persia, even assuming he wasn't as gifted militarily as Alexander (which is debatable...Philip, after all, created the military system which served Alexander so successfully during his career). Persia was quite literally on it's last legs. It was a case where all someone had to do was to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure would collapse. I think Philip's boots would have accomplished that just as easily as Alexander's.
Where I think Philip would have differed from Alexander is the lack of megalomania which Alexander displayed. I don't think he would have felt it necessary to go into India, or that his mission was to conquer the whole world, as Alexander is said to have felt his mission to be. Philip was much more of a pragmatist.
So, assuming Philip survives another 20 years (not unreasonable...he was 46 when he died in OTL, and could still be in reasonably good health 20 years later)...we probably see him conquer the Persian Empire, but stop at the Indus and turn back without crossing. He consolidates his gains, and appoints reliable governors over the various provinces of his empire.
By the time of Philip's death, Alexander is a mature man of 40, rather than the immature boy of 20 years he was when he assumed the throne in OTL. He's had time to be "mugged by life" and is likely to be someone more pragmatic and less idealistic, in the mold of his father. He further consolidates the empire, and turns west, bringing Magna Graecia and Italy within the empire, as well as possibly taking the west coast of Arabia.
He, too, consolidates his gains, and when Alexander dies in 285 BC, he leaves behind a capable heir to succeed him. Instead of the Diadochi, you end up with a long-lasting, unitary Macedonian empire extending from Italy to the Indus.
Last edited:
I really wonder if the Macedonians could have taken on Rome in this time-frame? A single major defeat would be enough for several parts of the Empire to rise in revolt - not least the Greek city states. Pyrrhus came to Magna Greacia at this time with a Macedon-style army and were unable to defeat the Romans, owing much to the lack of support in Magna Greacia.
Also, the Macedonians would mostly be dependent on its allies for its navy - the Greek city states and the Phoenicians. Is that enough to take on the Roman navy and perhaps also the Carthaganian one? What if the Greek city states betray Alexander and sail home after landing him.
All ancient Empires expanded until they became large, then they had to spend their resources keeping the Empire together rather than at further expansion.
Also, the Macedonians would mostly be dependent on its allies for its navy - the Greek city states and the Phoenicians. Is that enough to take on the Roman navy and perhaps also the Carthaganian one? What if the Greek city states betray Alexander and sail home after landing him.
All ancient Empires expanded until they became large, then they had to spend their resources keeping the Empire together rather than at further expansion.
In this time frame? Absolutely. Rome had not yet subjugated the most of the Etruscan cities or the Samnites, and had a much smaller population base than it would have during the later Punic Wars. It was still using Greek style hoplite tactics (it only adopted the more flexible manipular legion after the Samnite Wars). Plus, Alexander, unlike Hannibal, knew how to carry out a siege (people often say the reason Hannibal didn't take Rome was because he didn't "bring a siege train with him." No army ever brought a siege train with them. They built one locally when it was required. The problem was Hannibal evidently didn't have engineers with him who knew how to do this. Alexander would).
Assuming they even know about it. People often forget that communications in those days traveled very slowly, and sometimes news didn't get out at all.
Pyrrhus was about 30-40 years later. We are talking about Alexander going west around 315 BC.
1) There was no Roman navy at this time.
2) Why would Carthage care if Alex comes and starts kicking the Romans and the local Greeks around? If he waits until after he has subdued these groups to take on Carthage over western Sicily, it's too late for Carthage to do much about it.
3) We are talking a scenario where the Macedonians have had decades to consolidate their rule. Given that the Greek cities didn't revolt while Alex was away in Asia just a few years after the Macedonian conquest, its hard to see why they would do so now.
That's true. Which is why the expansion under Alexander is not tremendous under my proposed scenario...just western Arabia and Italy.
Has anyone ever tried to draw up a scenario combining the what-ifs of Philipp II of Macedon surviving an assassination attempt and Rome conquering (and keeping) Germania Magna while avoiding the Teutoburg Massacre?
Also, with Arabia presumably being under the direct rule of the Greco-Macedonians and then later the Romans over a course of several centuries, it would be interesting to see how this would affect the future evolution of Islam -if it emerges at all.
Also, with Arabia presumably being under the direct rule of the Greco-Macedonians and then later the Romans over a course of several centuries, it would be interesting to see how this would affect the future evolution of Islam -if it emerges at all.
Uh, they did. Agis III and all that. I suppose you might not count Sparta as Greek.
Are the romans of this period capable of defeating Philip or Alexander? Rome at this time is one city state among many, without the numbers to match what the macedonians can levy, nor the ability to readily replace entire field armies in the same manner as it would in later years. it's armies use a hellenistic style phalanx, which the Macedonians have demonstrated that they can beat (see Chareona). Between decades of greek warfare, and the campaigns in the Levant, the macedonians will know siege warfare, and thus, can storm or besiege rome.
Also, comparing Pyrrhus is probably spurious. Different time, different army, different political context.
What roman navy? There was no roman navy until the first punic war. The carthaginians may get involved (although they seem not to have cared much for direct intervention in Italy), but even them, are they a match for the power that Macedon can command?
I would also like to point out that the greeks could have abandoned Alexander during his long campaigns in asia. A lot easier to get away with when he is on the Indus than when he is on the Tiber.
This may be where the Macedonian empire falls apart. How long can they keep stable government, given cut-throat Macedonian succession politics, and can they get a working administrative system running?
That said, I don't see how this will automatically prevent any conquests in Italy. It didn't stop the Romans, or the Mongols, or the Chinese, or the British, or the...
I understand the point of empires expanding to the point where further expansion is impossible, but that tends to set in after the core territories of the empire are consolidated. I don't think that inertia will throw the breaks on the macedonians quite this quickly, not with philip and alexander at the helm.
Sparta never acknowledged the overlordship of Macedon. Therefore his war against Macedon was not a rebellion among subject Greek States, but an aggressive war by Sparta and those few Greek towns which had not joined the League of Corinth. My point was that the Greek cities which had leagued themselves with Macedon did not revolt while Alex was away.
And the only reason Agis accomplished as much as he did is because he was allied to the Persians, who were still rich and were able to give him the money he needed to hire lots of mercenaries. Rome was not a rich empire at this time...it was a small, rather poor city state. There is no way it could have financially supported a Greek revolt in Alexander's time.
So we're agreed that Philippos would go for all of Persia, but be more measured after that?
Would Philippos adopt Persian dress and ways as Alexandros did?
Would Philippos adopt Persian dress and ways as Alexandros did?
How would the development of Islam be affected if Arabia (the habitable parts of the peninsula, anyway) were placed under Greco-Macedonian (and later Roman) rule, assuming it were not butterflied away?
How are you so sure? Christianity (as we know it) developed in Anatolia, which was under both Greco-Macedonian and later Roman rule.
Nikephoros
Banned
It's called the butterfly effect.
With a POD before 1 AD, Christianity isn't gonna happen.
If one starts messing around with the actions of the Macedonian, Persian, and (proto) Roman empires a thousand odd years before the time of Muhammad, we are not going to see anything recognizable as islam arise.
Its not so much a question of the environment surrounding the nacent religion in this case (although that is also important, and will impact things ITTL*), but a function of 900 years of major changes to the history of the mediterranean and near eastern worlds eliminating both Muhammad and the circumstances surrounding his life. In particular, the odds of any OTL person being born ITTL are slim to none.
The exception, obviously, is if one believes that Muhammad was God's messenger, and he would arrive regardless of the surrounding circumstances (assuming, of course, that God sees a need ITTL). There are two problems with this, however. The first is that, with all due respect to everybody's belief systems, it makes for boring AH if everything is fated to happen, so we assume that this is not the case for the purposes of this site. The second reason is that all religions are impacted not only by their founders, but by the social, political, economic climates in which they arise. Since we are discussing Islam, one can easily see in the Qu'ran the way that Islamic teaching evolved in a matter of years to meet a changing political scene. An Arabia in this world would probably be at most barely recognizable with the OTL version, so even if a merchant named Muhammad starts preaching in Mecca, his teachings, and the reception, may very well be different.
*Christianity as we know it evolved under a hellenistic-influenced roman system, yes. Islam did not. If OTL islam were to emerge under such conditions (say, a byzantine occupation of the Hejaz), it would look very different.
I would love to read such timeline.
Me too. If Alexander takes on Rome and wins and lives long enough to consolidate his hold on Italy and then decides to go after Persia the resulting Macedonian Empire could concievably stretch from Britain to India.