Secyndianus, during the funeral procession of his parents (Artaxerxes I and his wife) in 424, killed his brother Crown Prince Xerxes II. Given the tradition of descent in the Achae-menid line, Secyndianus (Darius II) took the throne - in turn this led to the line of kings we know to have gone on to Darius III (336-330).
What if Secyndianus hadn't succeeded, or indeed never attempted, to assassinate his brother?
There is no definite evidence to suggest that the following would have occured as a result, other than some character appraisals which have come down to us through antiquity (particularly the Alexander historians, Ctesias et al); however, let us suppose that Xerxes II was, as has been thought, someone more concerned with protecting the boundaries of the Persian empire and not with expanding them.
As a result, Persia finds herself considerably more wealthy in the following years, and in 423-404 as a result the coastal cities of Asia Minor keep their status as 'autonomous' poleis, simply because of the King's lack of interest in subjugating those who do not wish to be controlled. Because of the diminished need for a large standing army in the west (the Greeks were happy enough slugging it out amongst themselves) fuller control can be kept of Egypt, and the revolt which occured in Artaxerxes II's reign never happens.
Consequently, by the time the Macedon monarchy is handed over to Alexander in 336, the Greek landscape is very different, as is Persia's. What would be the situation of Athens and Sparta? Given that Persia doesn't support Sparta during the Peloponnesian wars (because Sparta doesn't become involved in assisting Persia in Anatolia) the poleis of Asia Minor would probably in TTL be subjective to one of the two powers. Or what if Attica and the Peloponnese formed a federation to counter Philip's aggression following the conquest of Thessaly?
Either way, a change of policy in Persis would no doubt have led to a change of policy right across the Mediterranean world; and if the conquests of Alexander do not take place on the scale which they did in OTL, what then come the rise of Rome? Or would it even get that far?
What if Secyndianus hadn't succeeded, or indeed never attempted, to assassinate his brother?
There is no definite evidence to suggest that the following would have occured as a result, other than some character appraisals which have come down to us through antiquity (particularly the Alexander historians, Ctesias et al); however, let us suppose that Xerxes II was, as has been thought, someone more concerned with protecting the boundaries of the Persian empire and not with expanding them.
As a result, Persia finds herself considerably more wealthy in the following years, and in 423-404 as a result the coastal cities of Asia Minor keep their status as 'autonomous' poleis, simply because of the King's lack of interest in subjugating those who do not wish to be controlled. Because of the diminished need for a large standing army in the west (the Greeks were happy enough slugging it out amongst themselves) fuller control can be kept of Egypt, and the revolt which occured in Artaxerxes II's reign never happens.
Consequently, by the time the Macedon monarchy is handed over to Alexander in 336, the Greek landscape is very different, as is Persia's. What would be the situation of Athens and Sparta? Given that Persia doesn't support Sparta during the Peloponnesian wars (because Sparta doesn't become involved in assisting Persia in Anatolia) the poleis of Asia Minor would probably in TTL be subjective to one of the two powers. Or what if Attica and the Peloponnese formed a federation to counter Philip's aggression following the conquest of Thessaly?
Either way, a change of policy in Persis would no doubt have led to a change of policy right across the Mediterranean world; and if the conquests of Alexander do not take place on the scale which they did in OTL, what then come the rise of Rome? Or would it even get that far?