An idea I've had floating around for over a decade springs from the nature of the League of Corinth, Philip II's system for managing his hegemony over Greece. What if events had conspired so that instead of being a short term expedient soon dwarfed by Alexander's empire, the League evolved into a broad Hellenic federation, later to compete against powers like Rome for the Mediterranean?
In reality the League of Corinth was Philip's compromise between desiring an imperial relationship over the peninsula and having to deal with the ideal of the independent Polis so central to Classical Greek culture. That compromise? At the very least win enough dominance to neutralize his southern flank, so that the Persians - when invaded - could not effectively cause trouble in his back yard. And in exchange, maintain the plausibility of the acceptable fiction for the Hellenes, and Athens in particular, that they retained full self-government within this alliance.
This was never meant too honestly, not by Macedonians, but my idea relies on the law of unintended consequences. Philip had manufactured a nominal federation, and Alexander in Asia Minor would pointedly play out the fiction - establishing a system of stronger poleis with democratic governments. If the Macedonians had gotten stuck in West Asia instead of having a snowballing conquest of the known world, they would also have remained stuck dealing with Greek politics. They'd have to keep treating the League as if it were to some extent a collaborative and representative body.
This requires threading a needle between Achaemenid collapse and Macedonian collapse with the Achaemenids reoccupying the Eastern Aegean, but in that middle case things get interesting. Philip had a cynical system, and Alexander continued it, that worked short-term by complex and careful management of local politics, but which created institutions that potentially had permanence. One way this could go is for the King-Hegemons to acrue power and convert alliance to empire, as Athens did with the Delian League before. Another outcome would be for the League to simply dissolve within a generation or so.
But what if? Suppose Macedon remains too strong for the League to simply be destroyed (and, astride the Hellespont, retains grip on Athens' food supply), but also remains a regional power too weak to end the traditional privileges of Greek self-government. No great kings, then, but merely good enough. I like the idea of Asian poleis being incorporated as League members. A natural trend might then follow for the Corinthian League to become a medium of politics, with poleis coordinating to get what they want out of the Macedonian kings, Macedonian kings politicking to build coalitions of factions willing to support their aims, and the whole thing institutionalizing and defending the rights and privileges of the Polis.
How to get there precisely? My inclination is a different sperm inseminating the ovum that became Alexander the Great, resulting in an ~Alexander that is by DNA 3/4 the person we know from our timeline, but not quite the same brilliant military polymath. Even were he just a normal general in terms of handling sieges, for instance, the early war would soon be unrecognizable. Or perhaps this butterflies away Philip's death. At any rate, within those couple decades as ~Alexander is growing up, perhaps have the Persian reconquest of Egypt (a few years before) fail again. If Egypt had remained independent a few more years, the Persians would have had two Western security concerns, not one. If the Hellenic invasion later stalls before Syria, the Persians would be unable to focus on it and so might not succeed in reversing Hellenistic gains.
Thoughts? Ideas?
In reality the League of Corinth was Philip's compromise between desiring an imperial relationship over the peninsula and having to deal with the ideal of the independent Polis so central to Classical Greek culture. That compromise? At the very least win enough dominance to neutralize his southern flank, so that the Persians - when invaded - could not effectively cause trouble in his back yard. And in exchange, maintain the plausibility of the acceptable fiction for the Hellenes, and Athens in particular, that they retained full self-government within this alliance.
This was never meant too honestly, not by Macedonians, but my idea relies on the law of unintended consequences. Philip had manufactured a nominal federation, and Alexander in Asia Minor would pointedly play out the fiction - establishing a system of stronger poleis with democratic governments. If the Macedonians had gotten stuck in West Asia instead of having a snowballing conquest of the known world, they would also have remained stuck dealing with Greek politics. They'd have to keep treating the League as if it were to some extent a collaborative and representative body.
This requires threading a needle between Achaemenid collapse and Macedonian collapse with the Achaemenids reoccupying the Eastern Aegean, but in that middle case things get interesting. Philip had a cynical system, and Alexander continued it, that worked short-term by complex and careful management of local politics, but which created institutions that potentially had permanence. One way this could go is for the King-Hegemons to acrue power and convert alliance to empire, as Athens did with the Delian League before. Another outcome would be for the League to simply dissolve within a generation or so.
But what if? Suppose Macedon remains too strong for the League to simply be destroyed (and, astride the Hellespont, retains grip on Athens' food supply), but also remains a regional power too weak to end the traditional privileges of Greek self-government. No great kings, then, but merely good enough. I like the idea of Asian poleis being incorporated as League members. A natural trend might then follow for the Corinthian League to become a medium of politics, with poleis coordinating to get what they want out of the Macedonian kings, Macedonian kings politicking to build coalitions of factions willing to support their aims, and the whole thing institutionalizing and defending the rights and privileges of the Polis.
How to get there precisely? My inclination is a different sperm inseminating the ovum that became Alexander the Great, resulting in an ~Alexander that is by DNA 3/4 the person we know from our timeline, but not quite the same brilliant military polymath. Even were he just a normal general in terms of handling sieges, for instance, the early war would soon be unrecognizable. Or perhaps this butterflies away Philip's death. At any rate, within those couple decades as ~Alexander is growing up, perhaps have the Persian reconquest of Egypt (a few years before) fail again. If Egypt had remained independent a few more years, the Persians would have had two Western security concerns, not one. If the Hellenic invasion later stalls before Syria, the Persians would be unable to focus on it and so might not succeed in reversing Hellenistic gains.
Thoughts? Ideas?
Last edited:
