Philip's Plans After Liberating Asia Minor: An Alt. History

[rocktupac]

One of my favorite things to do with history (and I'm sure a favorite of many others as well), is to imagine 'what if?' with certain events. What if Julius Caesar had lived? What if the landing on Normandy failed? (I apologize to anyone who is offended by this next comment ) Or even: what if Alexander had lost at Gaugamela? And so on.

I have been thinking about Philip and his premature death before he was able to set off for Asia. As most of you know, there was already an advance force in Asia, lead by Parmenion, and many more soldiers at home in Macedonia ready for the crossing. What I was wondering was, had Philip not been assassinated and invaded Asia, what would have been his overall plans? He had to have an ulterior motive besides avenging the sacrileges of Xerxes, a Greek idea probably given little sympathy from Macedonians. (Not to spark the debate about whether or not Macedonians were Greeks) His army was massive and well-trained, perfectly suited for large-scale conquest, as we would actually see through Alexander.

Overall, I'm wondering what everyone thinks Philip's plans were had he not been killed and had he recaptured the Greek cities of Asia Minor. Forget what the sources say about his stated 'plans' and what he told the Greek world he was going to do. Think of what Philip may have had in mind after fulfilling his stated goals. What was next for him?

[Phoebus]

I don't know; consolidation?

I see Phillip as taking Dareius' offer of the western parts of the Persian empire. That is, Asia Minor, the Phoenician coast and Egypt. At this point, Phillip II is, I think, 48 years old and probably the most powerful--or second most powerful--man west of the Himalayas.

I don't know what form his empire would have taken. Though much smaller than what Alexander grabbed, it would be arguably more secure and certainly easier to manage. Alexandria still probably would have been built, though perhaps under a different name.

There are two questions this proposal raises iin my mind:
1. Would Phillip II eventually look to the west?
2. What does this mean for Alexander as we know him?

[marcus]

Alexandria still probably would have been built, though perhaps under a different name.

Philipopolis, or Philippia, I imagine.

I would need to check this, but it has been suggested that Philip would probably have been content with liberating the Greek cities of Asia Minor; and that, when Darius offered Alexander all the lands west of the Halys, this was what Philip would have accepted, or even that he would have stopped there in the first place. That is, Philip's plans were not to destroy and/or take over the Persian Empire, but to liberate Asia Minor and create some lebensraum in Anatolia. No more than that.

If that were the case, then of course Alexandria would not have been built, under any name.

But who knows?

ATB

[Phoebus]

If the "Dareius offer" came after Issus, assuming the battle was still fought near where Alexander was, I think the temptation would be too great to let control of the eastern Mediterranean go away. Aside from the money-making potential, Phillip would ensure that no future threat from the east could include naval support.

I think you might be right, though, about Alexandria/Egypt.

So, until Phillip II meets death by, let's say old age, Alexander will have been best known as a royal prince and as an aggressive officer in his father's armies. Fast-forwarding 15-20 years in the future, what do you think Alexander in his late thirties/early forties would be like ascending to the throne at last? What goals do you think he would set for himself? Would the East offer the same lure it did in our history, or would he be more geared toward conventional conquest and consolidation to the west?

[marcus]

If the "Dareius offer" came after Issus, assuming the battle was still fought near where Alexander was, I think the temptation would be too great to let control of the eastern Mediterranean go away. Aside from the money-making potential, Phillip would ensure that no future threat from the east could include naval support.

I think you might be right, though, about Alexandria/Egypt.

So, until Phillip II meets death by, let's say old age, Alexander will have been best known as a royal prince and as an aggressive officer in his father's armies. Fast-forwarding 15-20 years in the future, what do you think Alexander in his late thirties/early forties would be like ascending to the throne at last? What goals do you think he would set for himself? Would the East offer the same lure it did in our history, or would he be more geared toward conventional conquest and consolidation to the west?

Well, assuming that Philip even bothers to go as far as Issus ...

What is the probability/possibility that Philip never gets to old age, because by, say, 330 BC, Alexander is so fed up of waiting that he murders his father (or facilitates his murder) so that he can take over ...?

ATB

[Phoebus]

Marcus,

Well... I think he would have gone as far as was necessary to exact the sort of victory over Dareius that would more or less ensure the security of what he had conquered. Unless we take the more extreme sizes of the Granicus army offered seriously, neither Alexander nor Phillip (had he lived) would have been able to say that they had seriously dealt the Persian empire a crippling blow.

As to how long it would take to reach that second victory... I suppose I take it for granted that Phillip II would have moved at the same rapid pace as his son did, but that's not necessarily true now, is it? There's no real guarantee that Phillip would have crossed to the Levant; off the top of my head, I can't guess how much more strategically important it would have been for him to assert his will more fully over the entirety of Asia Minor before moving on.

[Paralus]

These can be a little bit of fun, they are though, in the end, meaningless. With that in mind....

There is nothing in my reading of Philip that would indicate his happiness with settling with simply the Greeks of Asia Minor. Nothing. There is, further, very little that would convince me that he would sign off on a frontier hundreds of miles long with both an undefeated Great King and an army on the other side.

A couple of things are forgotten – or neglected – in the responses to this thread. Firstly the expectation is that Philip will have dealt with Asia as he did with Greece. Secondly that he was, in some way, not the intrepid and brilliant Alexander. Both are grossly incorrect.

The second first. Philip was by far and away the most gifted battlefield general of his day. Further he was a politician (as we would call such today) and strategic diplomat par excellence. When he assumed the regency it was in the shadow of his brother’s utter defeat in the field against the Illyrians. By the time of his death he was master of Europe. This from a fractured, demoralised kingdom that, in 360/59, awaited the coup de grace from Paeonia, Illyria or Thrace. Philip guided and drove the creation of a Macedonian state that had, only single years before, been the plaything of the Chalcidians, Athenians, Illyrians and Thracians. A reading of the source material will quickly demonstrate his grasp of the mettle of the Athenian politicians: his playing of them over Amphipolis is a gem.

The entire notion that Philip could not have led a Macedonian victory in the east – as did his son – is predicated on the hindsight of the “Alexander legend” and is, in my opinion, a complete furphy.

Secondly the notion that Philip will have somehow been that much more conservative in his dealings with the Persian Empire rests largely upon his exposed dealings with the Greeks. It is a mistake to extrapolate Philip’s dealings with the “southern Greeks” so as to apply to his plans and /or intentions with the east. Philip dealt as circumstances – money, arms, men, etc – dictated with the Greeks. He had to bash fractious city states – long independent and proud of it – into eventual line. All the while having a care to harbour his strength at home due to fractious tribes on his “marches” to the north and west.

It is far better to compare his policy with the north and Thrace. Here there was no “delicate” treatment. It was fight and conquer. And the conquered were exactly that: their lands – and not a few of their cities – became Macedonian. The cities were rendered cities of the “Makedones” where the original inhabitants were forced into serving the conquerors. Only the Greek cities of the coast were spared this. This is what will have happened in the east. As it did under his son.

Philip will have gone as far east as his body will have taken him. The entire League of Corinth declaration of war on Persia was his doing and for his purposes. Those purposes will never have been served by settling for Asia Minor.

It’s all make-believe though and so it doesn’t matter. Does It?

[marcus]

Secondly the notion that Philip will have somehow been that much more conservative in his dealings with the Persian Empire rests largely upon his exposed dealings with the Greeks. It is a mistake to extrapolate Philip’s dealings with the “southern Greeks” so as to apply to his plans and /or intentions with the east.

This raises an interesting point. I wonder how Philip would have dealt with Darius on a political/negotiation level. I would be inclined to think that Philip would possibly have made much more use of negotiation - not with a view to compromise, but with a view to stalling Darius while he manoeuvred himself into the most favourable position militarily - as he did with Athens, as you point out.

Not only was Philip gifted militarily, he was, it seems to me, a much better politician than his son (at least as far as we can be made aware by the sources). Alexander was brilliant, no doubt about it, but he was very much one for using force first (and effectively). Philip had a subtlety that Alexander never had a chance (or perhaps needed) to display.

However, one still has to wonder how long it would have been before Alexander had Philip murdered ...

ATB

[the_accursed]

I think Philip would have conquered all of the Persian empire, and he would have done it a lot faster than Alexander did. It would have taken him no more than two or three years, and only two battles to defeat (and kill) Darius. After a couple of years of consolidation, he would have gone west. What else was he supposed to do with the rest of his life? He would not have "orientalised", though. No Persian soldiers in Philip's army, nor would he have married any Persian women. Philip would have spent his 56th birthday back in Pella as the (undefeated) ruler of everything from Gaul to Hindu Kush, and would today be known as the greatest king, warrior, military commander and conqueror of all time.

Alexander? After Chaeronea, he would never have fought in another battle. He would have moved (fled) to Epirus, become an alcoholic, and at the age 25 or so - around the time Philip had begun to conquer the west (still without Alexander) he would have killed himself. Philip would not have missed him (as Alexander would no longer have been his heir), and today, his name would barely ever be mentioned.

[athenas owl]

I think Philip would have conquered all of the Persian empire, and he would have done it a lot faster than Alexander did. It would have taken him no more than two or three years, and only two battles to defeat (and kill) Darius. After a couple of years of consolidation, he would have gone west. What else was he supposed to do with the rest of his life? He would not have "orientalised", though. No Persian soldiers in Philip's army, nor would he have married any Persian women. Philip would have spent his 56th birthday back in Pella as the (undefeated) ruler of everything from Gaul to Hindu Kush, and would today be known as the greatest king, warrior, military commander and conqueror of all time.

Alexander? After Chaeronea, he would never have fought in another battle. He would have moved (fled) to Epirus, become an alcoholic, and at the age 25 or so - around the time Philip had begun to conquer the west (still without Alexander) he would have killed himself. Philip would not have missed him (as Alexander would no longer have been his heir), and today, his name would barely ever be mentioned.

Oh I have to disagree, I think Philip would have married a Persian princess tout de suite, and any noble woman with political connections whose path he crossed if he went all the way to India. (Take that Olympias! )...he married an Illyrian, a Thessalonian and if memory serves he married a Thracian woman as well. I can't imagine, that if he found himself in the mess that was Upper Iran, he wouldn't have waited two years to marry into the local nobility. He might rather have enjoyed the whole harem system as well.

And really, I think the Persian influence was already strong in Macedonia, a land with nobles who enjoyed the finer things. Artabazus and the other Persian exiles being perhaps the latest. Alexander was not a schmoozer, Philip could do that much better. Here, too, I wonder if Artabazus and his extended clan might not have gone over sooner if it had been Philip and not the child become man, Alexander, that he had known in exile. Though, perhaps there was a kinship tie to Darius we don't fully understand for Artabazus' loyalty. It isn't like Artabazus was above a rebellion against a Persian great king...

This of course presumes that Philip wouldn't be knocked off by Alexander, Olympias or who the heck else that we don't have a clearer picture of...Amyntas iv for example.

You really think poorly of ATG I can see.

[Paralus]

However, one still has to wonder how long it would have been before Alexander had Philip murdered ...

He did in the real world...didn't he??!!

[Paralus]

Oh I have to disagree, I think Philip would have married a Persian princess tout de suite, and any noble woman with political connections whose path he crossed if he went all the way to India.

I would agree. Philip, it seems, married at the drop of campaign. I do think he'd have contracted the odd dynastic marriage in the east. I also agree he will not have "orientalised" to anywhere near the extent that his son did. Philip did indeed marry a Thessalian and a Thracian. He in no way became Thracian nor did he become Thessalian aside from being archon for life. Rather, it ws the conquered who were - on occasion - invited to become hetairoi.

That will not have been on the cards for Darius though.

[rocktupac]

Paralus -- I agree with you completely. The more I discover about Philip, the more I respect him.

I do think Philip would have conquered more then simply Asia Minor. He probably would have accepted an offer from Darius (like the offer given to Alexander) for the lands west of the Euphrates. But, this would most likely have been taken just to better position himself for further campaigns, as I think someone else mentioned.

Philip was a conqueror, like his son. True, they would have had very different reasons for conquest, and Philip's kingdom may have looked drastically different than Alexander's, but I do think eventually Philip would have moved into Persia and overthrown the Empire. He may not have pushed as far as India, but I do see him moving west (i.e. Rome, Carthage, etc.) sooner than his son had hoped to.

[Paralus]

He would have moved (fled) to Epirus, become an alcoholic, and at the age 25 or so - around the time Philip had begun to conquer the west (still without Alexander) he would have killed himself.

A role model for that brilliant condottieri Demetrius Poliorcetes then?

[Fiona]

I think Philip would have conquered all of the Persian empire, and he would have done it a lot faster than Alexander did.

That would be after he learned to get from one couch to the next, would it...

Fiona