What if Alexander's Macedonian Empire teleported away in 335 BCE, on the eve of his invasion of Persia?

What if Alexander's Macedonian Empire teleported away in 335 BCE, on the eve of his invasion of Persia?

Option 1 - Alexander's Macedonia, and all its Greek subjects and vassals (so everyone on mainland Greece except Sparta and Epirus) get suddenly teleported over 1,000 miles to the west, the strait off Byzantion, and now the strait off northernmost Thrace as well, does not lead to Asia Minor, but to Iberia, the western version (not the Caucasian version) instead. Observers in the Anatolian satrapies of Asia Minor notice the European mainland vanish, and may or may not appreciate that a source of a hell of a lot of imminent trouble has just been whisked away.



How does the classical world develop from there? With the immediate Macedonian threat to the hegemonic Persian Empire removed, the Black Sea now thoroughly united with the Mediterranean Sea instead of a tight connection through a narrow strait, and a majority of the Greek cultural world now centered to the west of the Pillars of Hercules rather than to the east - although still very much present in the Mediterranean (via Massilia, Tarentum, Sicily, Epirus, Sparta, Crete and other islands, Ionian cities)?
Does Alexander find Iberia/Hispania an interesting object of conquest? A practical one? If so, how much?

Option 2- Macedonia, its Greek mainland neighbors (Epirus and Sparta), and Greek island neighbors (in most of the Aegean and Crete, but not Rhodes) are suddenly swapped in 335 BCE for the Korean Peninsula.




Here, Persia notes the disappearance of Europe at the Bosporus and Dardanelles, and may or may not appreciate how it dissipates an imminent threat. However, right across from some of the central Ionian cities, they notice a new mountainous and wooded land, populated by strange-eyed looking men and women, whose physical resemblance to any known peoples is closest, if anything, to some of the peoples from the furthest eastern reaches of the Persian Empire. Their language is unfamiliar, they have settlements, but their material cultural seems more 'simple' like peoples living to the north of the empire. The Greeks of Rhodes and southern Italy/Sicily and Massilia are even more shocked at the disappearance and replacement of their homeland.

The peoples of Korea feel out of place with their Jomon, proto-Manchu and Chinese neighbors missing, all their new neighbors strange-looking and strange speaking, yet most of them (except some to the north perhaps) being remarkably clever and sophisticated with all arts of living, pottery, boats, and building in wood, and stone above all.

Meanwhile, in northeast Asia, the Macedonians and Greeks are in a new environment of harsh seas and high winds, with no Persian Asia across the straits. The winters get bitterly and uncharacteristically cold. The summers get at least as hot, if not hotter than home, but wetter and rainier. Those hardy sailors venturing from the Greek islands finding land to the east, do not find the familiar Asia or Persian Empire, but Jomon Japan, where clans live a simpler, more mobile material existence. People living to the north of Macedonia are even more nomadic and simple-living than the Illyrian and Dacian neighbors of old. But to the west, in what we today call China, are various Kingdoms and Princedoms of sophistication. Peoples with clever inventions and architecture and even philosophy, and definitely some visible wealth.

How does Alexander operate in this environment, and does he successfully reorient his view west, reconnoiter that direction, survive in place, and then proceed to be successful conqueror in China? Do his tactics fit the environment? If facing existential environmental crisis, does that just kill off the Macedonians and Greeks in place before their new neighbors hear much about them, or does that turn them into a migrating, marauding horde that imposes and dominoes its troubles onto others in the region?

Meanwhile, what of the developments in the classical world, with the Persian Empire given a near term reprieve, the porto-korean fish in Mediterranean waters, and the rump-Greek colonies, Carthaginians, Italic states, and Celts all factoring in?

The quasi-random "Korea swap" seems out of left field to me, and I'll ignore it for now. The originally proposed scenario could have fascinating implications in its own right.

Before we continue, however, @raharris1973: your pictures aren't showing. It might be that you're linking from a non-public section of AH.com, so re-uploading the pictures on (say) ImgBB and then linking to those would prsumably solve it.


If the Greek heartland is suddenly moved to the far West of the Med, then it will be in a position to corner the tin and amber trade, shoving Carthage out of that market. That's a big effect. Annexing the Iberian coast and hooking up with Massalia and thence (across the sea) with Megale Hellas seems like the obvious move.

A campaign to subdue Carthage (using the army prepared to conquer Persia) would be nigh-inevitable. Thereafter, mopping up Italy (where Rome is, for now, just a minor upstart power) would be a sensible next move. At that point, Alxander has united the Western Med into a "Greek realm" under his control. It is conveniently far away from Persia. (So nobody can challenge his reign, really.)

Skallagrim said:

Before we continue, however, @raharris1973: your pictures aren't showing. It might be that you're linking from a non-public section of AH.com, so re-uploading the pictures on (say) ImgBB and then linking to those would prsumably solve it.

Click to expand...

You were just very quick off the mark. I posted the OP but was still getting the pictures onto Imgur.

No Hellenism, no Christianity, no Islam, Judaism/Samaritanianism (sp?) remain single(ish) temple centric.
Any state that Alexander builds will collapse the moment he dies. If not sooner.
There will be Greco-Macedonian conquest of most of Iberia - all that half empty land next to overpopulated Greece - and maybe some expansion into Gaul. And constant warfare with the tribals ...
Carthage? No way. There is a Carthaginian navy between the crazy battlejunkie and the mercantile North African city. Alex will not get a sniff at it, unless captured and in chains.
I know that over half a thousand years later the Vandals - the whole tribe, some 80-100k people - made the Ceuta to Carthage trip on foot. But there is a list of differences between Vandals and Rome of 430 AD and Alexander's army and the Carthaginian state in 35BC longer than my arm.
The nutter can transport his army across the strait into Africa but trekking 1500km to Tunis, without rape and loot to sustain his force does not seem very plausible.

Skallagrim said:

If the Greek heartland is suddenly moved to the far West of the Med, then it will be in a position to corner the tin and amber trade, shoving Carthage out of that market. That's a big effect.

Click to expand...

Greeks and Macedonians who rule them taking over the Atlantic tin trade makes total sense to me. Amber? Was that largely Atlantic based in these times, or did it come down through the Baltic and Eastern Europe to the Black Sea?

Skallagrim said:

Annexing the Iberian coast and hooking up with Massalia and thence (across the sea) with Megale Hellas seems like the obvious move.

Click to expand...

They'd figure out where it is in relation to them soon enough, and these would be the most interesting pieces of geography to them. Their experience against Persia showed that sheer marching distance the distances you are talking about is not an insurmountable problem, but unlike in Persia, if they march along the straightest route to Massalia, the Pyrenees, that is a lot of barbarian country and a lot of mountains with a lot of poor, individual barbarian tribes. And Massalia and Megale Hellas can't be counted on to have a 'Megali' patriotic idea of enjoying being ruled by the bloody Macedonians - they'll have to be actually conquered.

Moving coastwise through the pillar of Hercules nabbing Carthaginian settlements and approaching via the Med has the advantage of taking over trade routes and markets as you go - but the Macedonians need to catch up navally with the Carthaginians to compete that way.

Neither is impossible by any means, it is just not quite the same campaign Macedonians and some Greeks had been dreaming about for a bit.

As @raharris1973 said - Alexander was marching through more or less civilised, developed or semi-developed areas. Roads! Or at least established trade routes.
Here - be it Iberia and Gaul, or North Africa - not so much. His ability to live off the land, his ability to bring up money and troops from "home" will be much lesser.

I'm fascinated by the wide Med-Black Sea connection and the mouth of the Danube being on OTL Serb-Bulgarian border. The former means no transcontinental invasions.

Speaking of seas, how fucked are the Greeks with their coast and ports suddenly gaining a tidal range of 3,5 metres?

raharris1973 said:

Moving coastwise through the pillar of Hercules nabbing Carthaginian settlements and approaching via the Med has the advantage of taking over trade routes and markets as you go - but the Macedonians need to catch up navally with the Carthaginians to compete that way.

Click to expand...

Carthaginian navy greatly hindering contact with home, the poorly populated coastal plain between the Atlas and Med incapable of feeding tens of thousands of men, little loot and slaves to pay them with ... this is NOT 429/30AD ...

Naturally, my view of the issue may be a brainfart

To clarify a bit: I posted before the map was posted, so I imagined it a bit differently (having interpreted the description incorrectly), namely with "transposed Hellas" fusing with Iberia, and Byzantion becoming a port city attached to the Iberian mainlaind, but outside the Gates of Herakles. This would then create a land border with the "original" Iberian peninsula, which would in turn make marching East a lot easier.

I imagined Alexander's ATL Empire ending up like this:



(The darker shade representing his own conquests, the lighter shade representing the further expansions and consolidations of later generations.)


As my map shows, I imagine Alexander's transposed realm controlling the Atlantic access to the Med, which would mean Carthage would be correspondingly weakened from the get-go. There are also other factors to consider, such as the fact that Alexander was famously good at getting "barbarians" to join his cause. For instance, the raiders from the Balkans who had plagued his father eagerly joined Alexander, because he appears to have been "their kind of guy". I think he'd effect the same result when meeting with the (also notoriously stubborn) Iberian tribes.

The notion that Alexander wouldn't be able to beat Carthage, which was raied by @Buba, is unconvincing to me. It's not like Greeks couldn't build ships, and let's face it: Alexander commanded the best army of the age, led by the best commanders that were available at the time. This was an absurdly well-trained fighting force, raised (in many cases literally raised, from birth) to conquer the Empire of Persia.

They could fucking take the Carthaginians, is what I'm saying.

raharris1973 said:

Greeks and Macedonians who rule them taking over the Atlantic tin trade makes total sense to me. Amber? Was that largely Atlantic based in these times, or did it come down through the Baltic and Eastern Europe to the Black Sea?

Click to expand...

Going via Eastern European rivers would still be a viable route, but with Greece now positioned where it as, sea trade would be theirs to command. And in the ancient world (as, indeed, often today!) going by sea was much faster. (And frankly, sea-pirates were far less frequent than armed bandits were on the overland routes, so it was generally much safer, too.)

Skallagrim said:

To clarify a bit: I posted before the map was posted, so I imagined it a bit differently (having interpreted the description incorrectly), namely with "transposed Hellas" fusing with Iberia, and Byzantion becoming a port city attached to the Iberian mainlaind, but outside the Gates of Herakles. This would then create a land border with the "original" Iberian peninsula, which would in turn make marching East a lot easier.

I imagined Alexander's ATL Empire ending up like this:

(The darker shade representing his own conquests, the lighter shade representing the further expansions and consolidations of later generations.)


As my map shows, I imagine Alexander's transposed realm controlling the Atlantic access to the Med, which would mean Carthage would be correspondingly weakened from the get-go. There are also other factors to consider, such as the fact that Alexander was famously good at getting "barbarians" to join his cause. For instance, the raiders from the Balkans who had plagued his father eagerly joined Alexander, because he appears to have been "their kind of guy". I think he'd effect the same result when meeting with the (also notoriously stubborn) Iberian tribes.

The notion that Alexander wouldn't be able to beat Carthage, which was raied by @Buba, is unconvincing to me. It's not like Greeks couldn't build ships, and let's face it: Alexander commanded the best army of the age, led by the best commanders that were available at the time. This was an absurdly well-trained fighting force, raised (in many cases literally raised, from birth) to conquer the Empire of Persia.

They could fucking take the Carthaginians, is what I'm saying.



Going via Eastern European rivers would still be a viable route, but with Greece now positioned where it as, sea trade would be theirs to command. And in the ancient world (as, indeed, often today!) going by sea was much faster. (And frankly, sea-pirates were far less frequent than armed bandits were on the overland routes, so it was generally much safer, too.)

Click to expand...

Damned quick and quality map-drawing work I must say, mister!

How do you see the Persian Empire doing in the long-run?

On the one hand, neither the Macedonians, nor other phalanx using killers like the Greeks, are there in the neighborhood to take down this hegemonic empire of all southwest Asia and Egypt, larger than China or India of its day.

On the other hand, nothing lasts forever.

Eventually, the Achaemenid dynasty will fall and its realm should break up. But will Persian based empires after this mainly be things limited to Iran, and at times Mesopotamia and AfPakistan? Or will the whole Achaemenid realm go through recurring cycles of reunification like China over the millennia ahead?

And what does the future hold for Carthage, and the states of Italy?

Is the Roman Republic, already occupying the footprint, more of less, of the medieval Papal States, just a random city-state that could sink into obscurity as easily as swim to notability? Or is it institutionally destined to outcompete and overcome its Etruscan, Samnite, Tarentum neighbors in Italy and other neighbors more broadly across the Mediterranean?

raharris1973 said:

How do you see the Persian Empire doing in the long-run?

On the one hand, neither the Macedonians, nor other phalanx using killers like the Greeks, are there in the neighborhood to take down this hegemonic empire of all southwest Asia and Egypt, larger than China or India of its day.

On the other hand, nothing lasts forever.

Eventually, the Achaemenid dynasty will fall and its realm should break up. But will Persian based empires after this mainly be things limited to Iran, and at times Mesopotamia and AfPakistan? Or will the whole Achaemenid realm go through recurring cycles of reunification like China over the millennia ahead?

And what does the future hold for Carthage, and the states of Italy?

Is the Roman Republic, already occupying the footprint, more of less, of the medieval Papal States, just a random city-state that could sink into obscurity as easily as swim to notability? Or is it institutionally destined to outcompete and overcome its Etruscan, Samnite, Tarentum neighbors in Italy and other neighbors more broadly across the Mediterranean?

Click to expand...

Nothing lasts forever but you could well see a Persian/Iranian empire that repeatedly resurges into being, as you say like China, and without a clear strong state to its west regaining control of much of Anatolia and probably at least northern Syria. The southern Levant and Egypt itself would probably depend on whether Egypt could get its act together and become a competitive rival empire again as with earlier Anatolian and Mesopotamian empires.

In terms of Rome and the Latin states not sure how they would do assuming that Alexander does reach them but it would depend really on him overcoming Carthage, which was loosely allied with Rome in this period against Greek power in southern Italy and Sicily. Rome did wear down Pyrrhus who was a formidable leader with a very Alexandrian type army so if they could inflict heavy casualties on the Macedonians and continue fighting then they might secure independence, even if Carthage is defeated. A lot would depend possibly on whether Alexander could get recruits and other support from the existing Greek settlements in Italia or possibly more likely some of the Roman local rivals like the assorted tribes or what's left of the Etruscans at this point.

I do suspect that Carthage would be beyond Alexander's reach simply because they will have too strong a navy for whatever Alexander can put together.

I think Buba raises a good point about how the Greeks will have problems with a change in their climate and especially as he mentions to deal with the suddenly much greater tides.

I've lived in Portugal - IMO it'd be warmer - or at least less "continental" - and wetter.
Much wetter.
But crops should stay same - corn and olives and vine and lentils. Plus "moo", "baa", "brah", "oink" and "cluck-cluck"..
Different fish.
Better access to timber?

1.Alexander near Spain - he take it,part of Gaul.Nothing more,becouse lack of logistic.His empire fall after his death.
Rome would take power and fight Persians,initially defeating them.

What change? notching in long run - Rome would still destroy Carhage and fight Iran.
Except...Kings would not try to take over world becouse they want emulate Alexander.
Maybe chrystianity would be different.Maybe not./Personally,i think it would be only roman version here,no orthodox becouse lack of greek/

2.It is more interesting,becouse Alexander would conqer China here.His empire would fall,too- but,after that,we would have strange Chineese- greek hybrid.
And,its rulers would try to conqer other countries.Certainly Greece .

Koreans - they would become vassals of Persia.Till romans would conqer them.
Chrystianity here could have two versions - roman and korean.

Hmm ... the possibility that Alexander sacks Rome and sells off its population into slavery makes me rethink my stance on "no Macedonian rampage" in Iberia, Gaul and Italy ...

Buba said:

Hmm ... the possibility that Alexander sacks Rome and sells off its population into slavery makes me rethink my stance on "no Macedonian rampage" in Iberia, Gaul and Italy ...

Click to expand...

If he get there at all.He go to Persia and later India to get riches - but,there was no any riches in Italy then.
And no strong opponents.
From Alexander point of vivv,if there was no spolis of war or glory,there was no reason to come at all.

raharris1973 said:

How do you see the Persian Empire doing in the long-run?

On the one hand, neither the Macedonians, nor other phalanx using killers like the Greeks, are there in the neighborhood to take down this hegemonic empire of all southwest Asia and Egypt, larger than China or India of its day.

On the other hand, nothing lasts forever.

Eventually, the Achaemenid dynasty will fall and its realm should break up. But will Persian based empires after this mainly be things limited to Iran, and at times Mesopotamia and AfPakistan? Or will the whole Achaemenid realm go through recurring cycles of reunification like China over the millennia ahead?

Click to expand...

stevep said:

Nothing lasts forever but you could well see a Persian/Iranian empire that repeatedly resurges into being, as you say like China, and without a clear strong state to its west regaining control of much of Anatolia and probably at least northern Syria. The southern Levant and Egypt itself would probably depend on whether Egypt could get its act together and become a competitive rival empire again as with earlier Anatolian and Mesopotamian empires.

Click to expand...

Alexander struck at a time when they just so happened to be vulnerable, shortly after an internal struggle between competing royal claimants. That internal war was nothing the realm couldn't have survived, and if given a decade or two to completely recover, the Akhaimenids would have been fine. But that was not to be, and it seems that Alexander really derailed Persian history forever. In fact, he did to them something rather akin to what the Mongols did to China and Russia (but, hilariously, to a lesser extent to Persia, which shrugged off their influence fairly comprehensively).

Without such an invasion as Alexander's, I'd project Persian history going on "as usual". Cyrus the Great was the founder of this expansive, multi-ethnic imperial state, and by all accounts it appears to have been sufficiently stable to last. It might periodically lose peripheral regions, and there may be changes in ruling dynasty from time to time, but this is nothing that such an empire wouldn't be able to handle. Dynastic changes don't typically end an empire, and losses can easily be "just temporary".

If I may be so bold as to apply a macro-historical view of civilisational history to this lane of discussion, I'd say that an "uninterrupted" history of Persia would continue quite steadily until In both cases, you'd expect that state of affairs to last until about c. AD 150, at which point some kind of turbulence would erupt. This would last some 300 years, before giving way to further escalation c. AD 450. A chaotic, deviant period would last until c. AD 750, and then you'd end up with the 500-year period of "Universal Empire", under which the civilisation would actually be at its most cohesive and unified.

That, at least, is the general evolution of civilisations, as observed by various historians of note. Certainly not uncontroversial, but that's the general trajectory of what I'd expect. In this context, it might be noted that the start of the "more turbulent period" that I preject actually co-incides with the major Turkic invasion of Persia in OTL. The comparable period in Egyptian history was marked by the dominance of the foreign Hyksos. So might we see a Persian "Hephtalite Period" AD 450 - AD 750, culminating in restoration of national strength and pride as the interlopers are expelled? Subsequently leading to the vindication of the civilisation in its Universal Empire?

That's what I would expect, in a would where Persion history is not "interrupted" at a crucial stage.

The big question would be what would happen after this empire collapses. It's practically a rule that the universal empire in which the civilitional cycle culminates will last for a period approaching 500 years. After that, you get three centuries of chaos. And from that chaos... either the civilisation is re-born and it just unifies into "The Empire" once again... or what's broken stays broken, and a new culture arises. (The former happened in China, after the fall of the Han; the latter happened in Europe, after the fall of Rome.)

It might be noted that the Persian universal empire that I'm postulating here would be slated to end in the period AD 1200 - AD 1250. So, if we may assume a vaguely similar "tide" to the churning of the great steppe as in OTL... Persia should be at its most chaotic (embroiled in the post-imperial dark ages) when the alt-Mongols come knocking. Which suggests that the end of Persia (at least as we may have known it up to that point) may indeed be final.

All of this is, of course, a lot of speculation. But this is how I view the matter.

raharris1973 said:

Is the Roman Republic, already occupying the footprint, more of less, of the medieval Papal States, just a random city-state that could sink into obscurity as easily as swim to notability? Or is it institutionally destined to outcompete and overcome its Etruscan, Samnite, Tarentum neighbors in Italy and other neighbors more broadly across the Mediterranean?

Click to expand...

stevep said:

In terms of Rome and the Latin states not sure how they would do assuming that Alexander does reach them but it would depend really on him overcoming Carthage, which was loosely allied with Rome in this period against Greek power in southern Italy and Sicily. Rome did wear down Pyrrhus who was a formidable leader with a very Alexandrian type army so if they could inflict heavy casualties on the Macedonians and continue fighting then they might secure independence, even if Carthage is defeated. A lot would depend possibly on whether Alexander could get recruits and other support from the existing Greek settlements in Italia or possibly more likely some of the Roman local rivals like the assorted tribes or what's left of the Etruscans at this point.

Click to expand...

Rome would still be quite weak at this stage. Keep in mind, Pyrrhos was 50 years later, and those 50 years counted. There's also the fact that Pyrrhos didn't use the phalanx correctly, going for a tactic where he split it into segments, and letting himself be drawn into engagements on rocky terrain. The whole point of the phalanx is to be the strong centre, utterly indivisible, and to always fight on flat ground.

Alexander wouldn't make that kind of mistake. He never did in OTL, and his various decisions (when to choose battle and when to refuse an engagement) show that he was keenly aware of the prerequisite victory conditions for his kind of army.

AFAIK Alexander did break up the phalanx into smaller pieces supported by light/medium foot, this being his contribution to the art of war. And this was the norm during the Hellenistic Age. Hellenistic states could field so many hoplites/sarrisophoroi that lumping them into a single unit was impracticle.
Heavy infantry in smaller units on the battlefield - why, that's the Roman legion, isn't it ...

I fully agree on Persia - the madlad caught it with its pants down. If no Alexander then Persia lives on peacefully - more or less - for centuries.
Potential threats -
- Egyptian rebellion - minor threat, as the Egyptians are unlikely to go on a spree of conquest in the Levant)
- Greek rebellion - may happen and may produce breakaway state in Asia Minor (especialy if headed by ambitious satrap or prince no. 44 in line for throne); again minor, as this is periphery
- invasion from Great Steppe - may overrun the empire, even if not very likely. Be this Scythians who manage to unite under some early Seljuk or Temudzhin, or the 1st wave of Turks.
- India - again periphery, maybe loss of territory between Indus and mountains. India never produced long lasting polities, hence a strike at the Iranian Plateau is rather unlikely
- I have no recollection of Syrian or Mesopotamiam revolts against the 1st Persian Empire.

Same as aforementioned China, Persia is so large that its main enemy is she herself. When moderately well ruled it can be nibbled at but never seriously threatened. But civil wars over succession - invevitable in a polygamous/harem system - will weaken it every two or three generations, leaving it exposed to attack.

Alexander would not get support from Greek or Italic or Etruscan polities as he is an outsider conqueror-looter. Unless a group of locals hires him to hurl against another group. Or buy him off. But there would be no rallying around him - Phyrrus, brought in to deal with Rome, did not manage to have the local Greeks and Italics coalesce around him.
An Alexander rampaging on the Apennine Peninsula may obliterate Rome in passing, without noticing it. Simply another looted and enslaved town on route ...

Buba said:

AFAIK Alexander did break up the phalanx into smaller pieces supported by light/medium foot, this being his contribution to the art of war. And this was the norm during the Hellenistic Age. Hellenistic states could field so many hoplites/sarrisophoroi that lumping them into a single unit was impracticle.
Heavy infantry in smaller units on the battlefield - why, that's the Roman legion, isn't it ...

I fully agree on Persia - the madlad caught it with its pants down. If no Alexander then Persia lives on peacefully - more or less - for centuries.
Potential threats -
- Egyptian rebellion - minor threat, as the Egyptians are unlikely to go on a spree of conquest in the Levant)
- Greek rebellion - may happen and may produce breakaway state in Asia Minor (especialy if headed by ambitious satrap or prince no. 44 in line for throne); again minor, as this is periphery
- invasion from Great Steppe - may overrun the empire, even if not very likely. Be this Scythians who manage to unite under some early Seljuk or Temudzhin, or the 1st wave of Turks.
- India - again periphery, maybe loss of territory between Indus and mountains. India never produced long lasting polities, hence a strike at the Iranian Plateau is rather unlikely
- I have no recollection of Syrian or Mesopotamiam revolts against the 1st Persian Empire.

Same as aforementioned China, Persia is so large that its main enemy is she herself. When moderately well ruled it can be nibbled at but never seriously threatened. But civil wars over succession - invevitable in a polygamous/harem system - will weaken it every two or three generations, leaving it exposed to attack.

Alexander would not get support from Greek or Italic or Etruscan polities as he is an outsider conqueror-looter. Unless a group of locals hires him to hurl against another group. Or buy him off. But there would be no rallying around him - Phyrrus, brought in to deal with Rome, did not manage to have the local Greeks and Italics coalesce around him.
An Alexander rampaging on the Apennine Peninsula may obliterate Rome in passing, without noticing it. Simply another looted and enslaved town on route ...

Click to expand...

Achmenid Empire had one crucial weakness - no standing army.Immortals was not ninja turtles of Doom,like in 300,but royal Guard,and only standing army they had.
All others - local levies and mercaneries.Against Reformed Roman Legions they would have no chance.


But,once they made their own standing army,they would survive.
Harem system - problem indeed,but if King choose next one when stil alive,it should work.

Alexander destroing Rome - unlikely,that he get so far.There was no riches or glory there.

P.S if He decide go after Carthage and build good fleet,He could destroy them and later try go after Persia.
Unfortunatelly,dunno how many ships greek could made for him.
But - Since Greek wages war first on phoenicians,and next on Carthage from at least 700BC,they would certainly support him in this.

Buba said:

AFAIK Alexander did break up the phalanx into smaller pieces supported by light/medium foot, this being his contribution to the art of war. And this was the norm during the Hellenistic Age. Hellenistic states could field so many hoplites/sarrisophoroi that lumping them into a single unit was impracticle.
Heavy infantry in smaller units on the battlefield - why, that's the Roman legion, isn't it ...

Click to expand...

The whole point of the Macedonian phalanx was not to break it up, and Alexander didn't. It was the centre of his army at every battle. One strong cohort, intended to take, withstand and ultimately break the enemy assault. The phalanx was flanked on both sides by more flexible infantry, and further on the outside by cavalry. Alexander himself led the Companion Cavalry, usually from the centre-right or far-right, while leaving command of the left wing to one of his most trusted generals.

Alexander didn't do so much in the way of "contributions to the art of war". The innovations were his father's, really. But insofar as this can be applied, they were the opposite of what you suggest. The Macedonians re-invented the phalanx by using the long sarissa and doubling the ranks. This made the phalanx (even) less mobile, and made it suitable only as a monolithic bloc that served precisely to withstand anything the enemy threw at it. (Even a full charge by armoured cavalry could by broken by the Macedonian phalanx, which was capable of turning such a thing into horse kebab.)

It is by the strong, unflinching centre and by his own willingness to personally lead the elite cavalry as it smashed into the enemy's flank that Alexander won again and again. Nobody else had soldiers that well-trained; nor commanders that crazy.

Maybe I read different books, or that was "old science" or I misremember what I read
The crazy was strong in that one - yup.
His adversaries were astonished by assaults led by a heirless monarch wielding bog breath from yesterday's drunken orgy