Would Alexander have waited for his father to die? I was kinda under the impression the assassination was orchestrated by Alexander (and his mother?) Ambitious as Alex is, I don't see him waiting patiently for Phil to die "naturally"
Let's suppose that King Phillip II of Macedon (and father of Alexander the Great) escaped assassination, and proceeded with his plans for an invasion of the Achaemenid Persian Empire -how differently would it have proceeded compared to under Alexander?
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.
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.
Uh, they did. Agis III and all that. I suppose you might not count Sparta as Greek.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.
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.
Uh, they did. Agis III and all that. I suppose you might not count Sparta as Greek.
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.
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?
With a POD before 600 AD, Islam isn't gonna happen.
How are you so sure? Christianity (as we know it) developed in Anatolia, which was under both Greco-Macedonian and later Roman rule.
How are you so sure? Christianity (as we know it) developed in Anatolia, which was under both Greco-Macedonian and later Roman rule.
I would love to read such timeline.