What if - Phillip and Alexander die same time

[Timotheus]

Little what if for entertainment.

Lets say that the assasin of Phillip of Macedonia was hired by Athens or Sparta. Now to be efficient two assassins are hired so that Alexander, Phillips heir can be killed as well. Both assassins suceed. Without a strong talented leader the army of Macedon never goes after Persia.

How does this change history? The existance of Persia should not really affect the growth of Rome. In fact Rome might not really care until the Punic Wars.

What do you think happens?

[Paullus Scipio]

Short Answer: History stays the same! hock:
Macedonia had no shortage of 'strong men' talented leaders ready willing and able to take over.....Attalus for one and not forgetting there was a 'legitimate' King whom Philip had ousted - his nephew Amyntas IV, son of King Perdiccas III (Philip's elder brother). And of course there was the half-brother of Alexander , Arrhidaeus ( who suffered some mental handicap) who would make a useful puppet for an Attalus, or someone else. In fact, thanks to the polygamy of Philip and other Macedonian kings, there were no end of contenders.... for example Leonnatus and Perdiccas ( both bodyguards of Philip, and eventually of Alexander! ) were of Royal descent :? As some of these men showed after Alexander's death in the wars of the Diadochi, they were 'strong talented leaders' in their own right.......

After a short internal Macedonian struggle for supremacy, the next 'strong man/ruler' builds on the advance force already in Asia in 336 BC and the invasion of rich Persia proceeds much as before, and thanks to the technological superiority of the Macedonian army - it's Torsion catapults allowing cities to be taken; Pike Phalanx superiority over Persian infantry; and new ( for Greek armies) Macedonian/Thessalian Cavalry strike force, Darius' kingdom falls as before.......

[Epictetus]

This does not directly address what you asked, Timothy, but I thought the following was interesting. This is from Josiah Ober’s essay about what would have happened if Alexander died early, published in the book What if?.

• Macedonian civil war, generations of weak kings
• Persian peace and prosperity
• Athens dominate in mainland Greece
• Expansion of international trade and Ahuru-Mazda worship
• War between Carthage and Athens in Western Mediterranean, they weaken each other and expanding Rome fills void
• Rome and Persia clash, come to stalemate and later to understanding; intermarriage and cultural borrowings between the two increase
• Greek city-state traditions (freedom, political equality, personal dignity) fade for profound reverence for ritual, tradition, ancestors and social hierarchy
• Rome and Persia evolve as each are multi-ethnic and multi-cultural empires, no ‘hegemonic master culture’ appears
• Judaism remains local, Jesus and Christianity likewise local; New Testament not in ‘universal’ Greek and so would not find a broad audience

[Lanista]

Or, New Leader of Macedon takes Darius's peace deal of half the empire + Roxanne. Then he goes west, crushes the burgeoning Italian city states and ushers in a new era of Hellenism.

That'd probably change things a fair bit.

Cheers

Russ

[Paullus Scipio]

I don't think either of the above two ideas are particularly likely for the following reasons, but of course since we are talking 'hypotheticals' anything is possible !! Just for fun, I'll set out why I don't think these two interesting possibilities would have been probable......

This does not directly address what you asked, Timothy, but I thought the following was interesting. This is from Josiah Ober’s essay about what would have happened if Alexander died early, published in the book What if?.

• Macedonian civil war, generations of weak kings ......but this didn't happen after Alexander's death - on the contrary there were too many 'strong' Kings as successors
• Persian peace and prosperity ...unlikely too - Persia was torn by dynastic strife, witness the situation that brought Darius to the throne, and the constant revolts of provinces seeking to break away, or the rebellions of Satraps seeking the throne. Given Persia's history, there was little or no chance of 'peace and prosperity'.
• Athens dominate in mainland Greece ...again unlikely - Athens never achieved hegemony in Greece, and her power had declined long before Philip's death...
• Expansion of international trade and Ahuru-Mazda worship
• War between Carthage and Athens in Western Mediterranean, they weaken each other and expanding Rome fills void.
...unlikely since Athens power had declined long before the rise of Carthage.....what actually occurred was rivalry between the Greek cities of Sicily - such as Syracuse which had already defeated Athens, growing in power and eclipsing her - and Carthage. Rome was drawn into this struggle which became the first Punic War. The deaths of Philip and/or Alexander had no effect on the 'western' Mediterranean, no matter when they occurred.
• Rome and Persia clash, come to stalemate and later to understanding; intermarriage and cultural borrowings between the two increase
...which is what happened anyway in 'real' history...
• Greek city-state traditions (freedom, political equality, personal dignity) fade for profound reverence for ritual, tradition, ancestors and social hierarchy
• Rome and Persia evolve as each are multi-ethnic and multi-cultural empires, no ‘hegemonic master culture’ appears
• Judaism remains local, Jesus and Christianity likewise local; New Testament not in ‘universal’ Greek and so would not find a broad audience
These last three simply didn't happen, except arguably Rome and Parthia were multi-ethnic/multi cultural..... presumably the 'hegemonic master culture' referred to is Christianity, and given that the time was ripe for a single religion to 'take over', if Christianity hadn't absorbed the other 'mystery' religions then another would have, probably 'Sol Invictus'....

Or, New Leader of Macedon takes Darius's peace deal of half the empire + Roxanne. Then he goes west, crushes the burgeoning Italian city states and ushers in a new era of Hellenism.

Don't think this very likely either, since thanks to accepting the deal, Macedon wouldn't have elephants. Pyrrhus did have elephants and could not conquer Italy, nor Sicily either. Not only that, but no less an authority than Hannibal ranked Pyrrhus the greatest ancient General, better even than Alexander; so if the Greatest General couldn't conquer the Italian cities with the advantage of elephants, then likely no-one could.....

[Epictetus]

Actually, I think Ober meant that the 'hegemonic master culture' in the Eastern Mediterranean was Greek. His theory was that it's spread and lasting success was greatly buttressed by Alexander's conquests. If he had died early, there would have been much more of a multi-cultural atmosphere around the region. Therefore Ober thought that the New Testament would have been written in Aramaic, not Greek, so there would not be a broad audience for the spread of Christianity.

I don't necessarily agree with all his ideas, but it is fascinating to think that a small change could have such a giant impact on world history.

[Scythian]

Short Answer: History stays the same! hock:
Macedonia had no shortage of 'strong men' talented leaders ready willing and able to take over.....Attalus for one and not forgetting there was a 'legitimate' King whom Philip had ousted - his nephew Amyntas IV, son of King Perdiccas III (Philip's elder brother). And of course there was the half-brother of Alexander , Arrhidaeus ( who suffered some mental handicap) who would make a useful puppet for an Attalus, or someone else. In fact, thanks to the polygamy of Philip and other Macedonian kings, there were no end of contenders.... for example Leonnatus and Perdiccas ( both bodyguards of Philip, and eventually of Alexander! ) were of Royal descent :? As some of these men showed after Alexander's death in the wars of the Diadochi, they were 'strong talented leaders' in their own right.......

After a short internal Macedonian struggle for supremacy, the next 'strong man/ruler' builds on the advance force already in Asia in 336 BC and the invasion of rich Persia proceeds much as before, and thanks to the technological superiority of the Macedonian army - it's Torsion catapults allowing cities to be taken; Pike Phalanx superiority over Persian infantry; and new ( for Greek armies) Macedonian/Thessalian Cavalry strike force, Darius' kingdom falls as before.......

I agreee with this in general, but I think that the most important person in the kingdom would have been Parmenion. Whoever took power would have needed the man who, according to plutarch, was the only good general Philip had ever found.

Without Alexander's recklessness and overwhelming need to prove himself superior to Persia I think the conquest of Persia would have been a slower process. The Macedonians might have accepted Darius' offer of half the kingdom, before consolidating and taking the rest.
I doubt that anyone other than alexander would have bothered going on into India, but that made no significant impact on European history.

The most significant difference would have come in religion.

Alexander's decision to declare himself a god had no political worth and only served to feed his ego and alienate everyone around him. It is very unlikely that anyone else would have made such a bold and unprecidented claim.

Without the divine Alexander the hellenistic successors would not have been worshipped as gods and the hellenistic countries would have had no reason to ask permission to establish a cult to Augustus. Therefore there would never have been an Imperial cult.

The image of Jesus is also influenced by images of alexander as the son of Ra, with the sun behind him, illuminating him. It was this image of Alexander which was imitated by other hellenistic rulers and evolved into the halo of the Christian faith. Alexander also chose not to wear a beard, in order to be associated with Apollo, the god of the sun. Without Alexander there would be no reson for greeks and Romans to adapt an Egyptian image to serve their own needs.

Therefore if Alexander had been assassinated angels would not have had halos.

[Robert Vermaat]

Impossible to say.

However, I doubt very much that the hellenistic culture would have penetrated so far East as it did as a result of Alexander's driven conquests. Alexander was unique. Strong kings sure, but none other was of his daring (read: lunatic reckless) nature, and I doubt that Persia would have been dealt a blow like it was.

Sure, Darius was not a popular king, aand maybe he would have been toppled by a stronger man - but I very much think that Persia wwould not have fallen. The Romans never managed to do so. However, what the influence of a rising parthia on a tottering or maybe strong Persian Empire would have been I can't begin to guess.

[Lanista]

Don't think this very likely either, since thanks to accepting the deal, Macedon wouldn't have elephants. Pyrrhus did have elephants and could not conquer Italy, nor Sicily either. Not only that, but no less an authority than Hannibal ranked Pyrrhus the greatest ancient General, better even than Alexander; so if the Greatest General couldn't conquer the Italian cities with the advantage of elephants, then likely no-one could.....

Comparing Pyrrus's forces to Alexander's and Phillip's much the same as comparing the Legions of the 1st Century to the 3rd. Alexander (or new bloke in this scenario) didn't need elephants. Darius had elephants and they didn't do too well for him against Alexander. Maybe this elephant fixation made Hannibal rate Pyrrus? Who knows *lol*

It's all conjecture at the end of the day, but I really don't think the Italian states could have stood against an Alexander and his armies at their height of power. The Romans defeated a declining military ideal at the dogs head (as did the Macedonians at Charonea)...its the way of the world, I guess.

These discussions are always great - we all know what happened but its always fun to pit the best of the best at their best against each other. And for that, I thank the gods on Olympus for Rome: Total War.... :-) )