If Alexander was never born

[A Demented Goldfish]

What if alexander the great of macedon was never born and the persian empire never fell?
Phillip would have died and the greeks would go back to in fighting.
So Would it be Rome vs Persia or what?

[Emperor Napolean Bonaparte IX]

who would win rome or persai

[Antiochos VII Sidetes]

Why would Greece have gone back to feuding? Philip was a character of extreme ability, yes, but his successor would inherit both the deadly Macedonian army and the political hegemony of Macedon itself. An invasion of Persia was inevitable.

[A Demented Goldfish]

Why would Greece have gone back to feuding? Philip was a character of extreme ability, yes, but his successor would inherit both the deadly Macedonian army and the political hegemony of Macedon itself. An invasion of Persia was inevitable.

maybe, but their were several other candidates for heir of macedon a civil war would have broke out. plus the greeks wanted to rebel ever since they were defeted at Chaeronea

[Emperor Charlemagne XII]

who would win rome or persai

hmm.... thats a hard one

[Banana Jelly]

who would win rome or persai

Around 300bc, I guess it would be a tie. Because Rome wasn't developed by its marius reforms.

[Yoda Twin]

Around 300bc, I guess it would be a tie. Because Rome wasn't developed by its marius reforms.

Or more liek Persians completely annihlating the Roman, Rome was tiny at 300bc and the Persian Empire was still the supreme power in region if not the world

[Viking Prince]

Moved from VV main to Alt History. This has the feel of a vs. discussion and not really a discussion suited to the main forum.

VP

[cpdwane]

The Persian Empire wasn't really spreading by then mind, if anything it may have been slowly stagnating.

But then, would Pyrrus of Epirus possibly take the place of Alexander?

[Seleucos of Olympia]

Possibly. He was a charismatic general and if the Macedonian royal line was unpopular and/or incompetent, he could take over power. But without Alexander, and if Olympias hadn't borne another heir to Philip, he would have had no proper dynastic claim on the Macedonian throne.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that an invasion of the Persian Empire was inevitable. Persian gold in the right pockets could lead the destabilization and collapse of the Corinthian League, given enough time, and then the Greeks would keep fighting each other instead of the Persians.

[maerd2003]

people dont watch that stupid movie(Oliver Stone) - persian soldiers running to the spears and die, they never think about what happens if they stop running(i bet they were cleverer than that..)

[Red]

people dont watch that stupid movie(Oliver Stone) - persian soldiers running to the spears and die, they never think about what happens if they stop running(i bet they were cleverer than that..)

But I like that movie.

[Lysimachus]

In my opinion, a limited invasion of Persia would have occurred. I don't think there was another man of Alexander's level who would be able to replicate his achievement, so maybe another ruler would be able to have secured a chunk of Darius's empire before bogging down.

[Wegen7 die Große]

Quite obvious, Phillip would die of assassination then his heir would take the throne, the heir would defeat the rebellion in greece then go off to attack the persians in asia minor and since the heir would not be a tactical genius like alexander then he would be defeated sooner or later and then war would continue until rome defeats carthage and then decides to help the greeks and macedonians.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

There's a possibility that Phillip's heir would invade Rome..
THe invasion of Persia was something that was organized by Phillip and Alexander just chose to complete his father's dream..
Maybe his other heir would have wanted to do something else.. Macedonia had the strongest and most organized army in Europe by that time anyway so I think he would have done something his army..
I like the scenario of an invasion of Rome which had only started to extend its dominions in Latium against the Etruscans and the Samnites.. The Roman army of this era would have been easily defeated by the Macedonian, also keeping in mind that the Macedonian generals and the Macedonian officers were very good commanders..

[Faramir D'Andunie]

There's a possibility that Phillip's heir would invade Rome..
THe invasion of Persia was something that was organized by Phillip and Alexander just chose to complete his father's dream..
Maybe his other heir would have wanted to do something else.. Macedonia had the strongest and most organized army in Europe by that time anyway so I think he would have done something his army..
I like the scenario of an invasion of Rome which had only started to extend its dominions in Latium against the Etruscans and the Samnites.. The Roman army of this era would have been easily defeated by the Macedonian, also keeping in mind that the Macedonian generals and the Macedonian officers were very good commanders..

I do not really think that any sensible ruler of Makedonia could ignore the Persian empire, especially considering its tendency to use its vast economical power to finance rebellions against whoever seemed to become the top dog in Greece. Or that certain events (The military campaign that Xenophon describes about, that the 2nd Athens alliance was able to defeat the Persian Satraps in Asia, when the Satrap of Frygia asked for assistance (356 or 355 bc, can't remember)) showed that Persian Empire was still strong but not invincible.

On the other hand why would they bother to go west side, and Italy for that. Even if someone wished to move west, Sicily would be the most lucrative target.


Considering Makedonia had a king strong enough to keep what Philip created, for it could for example crumble like Thebes did, there is a high possibility that a war with Persia would follow but nothing real close to what Alexander achieved. Perhaps Persia would be pushed out of western Anatolia, or all of Anatolia for that matter and some compromise later.

[Phoebus]

Assuming Alexander was never born and Philip died when he did, Macedon would have been screwed.

Alexander had an older brother--Philip III Arrhidaeos--who was either mentally ill, unbalanced, or incompetent. He was used as a pawn by kingmakers after Alexander's historical death, and would have been used as such after Philip's death in an alternative timeline. No mere kingmaker would have been able to undertake an expedition/conquest on the scale of what Philip and Alexander envisioned while trying to coerce everyone via such tenuous ties to power. Perdiccas & co. showed us this throughout the last two and a half decades or so of the 4th century B.C. Hell, I doubt they would have been able to hold the League of Corinth together.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Theres still the carthaginian empire for rome to defeat first. Macedon supported Carthage the first time, what if its Persia with its huge sums of money supporting Carthage this time.

[Wegen7 die Große]

Theres still the carthaginian empire for rome to defeat first. Macedon supported Carthage the first time, what if its Persia with its huge sums of money supporting Carthage this time.

Ha the Carthaginians are mercenarys they will do anything for trade and money.