#Greek revenge campaign against Persia

[jeannereames]

Dr. Reames!! Oftentimes I see it mentioned that Alexander’s Persian campaign was framed at the time as a revenge against Persia for previous wars against Greece. And so, for example, the burning of Persepolis could be interpreted as payback for the burning of Athens.

But how accurate is that actually? I can only suppose that the top echelons of the Macedonian military establishment didn’t really feel that strongly about Greece as a whole (as Greece wasn’t a unified country like today), but had to frame it as such to disguise what could be seen as a shameless offensive land grab.

Even so, Alexander knew his propaganda. Was there a general feeling among the people of Greece and the rank and file troops that this campaign was a revenge for the previous wars Persia waged against Greece? Some sort of unifying spirit, ideal? And Alexander exploited this for his benefit? Or is this idea of a Greece vs Persia conflict a complete fabrication of misinterpretation?

The idea of a “Revenge against Persia” campaign was part of 4th century political discourse before Alexander, or even Philip. The question was who would lead such a campaign? Naturally, Athens thought they should, but after their defeat in the Peloponnesian War, didn’t have the military mojo. And even if Sparta had opposed the Persian invasion (alongside Athens), she owed her success in the Pel War to Persian assistance, so that was a problem. Thebes as a potential leader was even worse, as she’d Medized (went over to the Persians), so hell-to-the-no would she be appropriate.

Isokrates was probably the first to suggest it be Philip, as his star was rising. Yes, Macedon had also Medized, but Alexander I had been a clever man who played both sides against the middle and was able to burnish his rep after the war as “having no choice, and see? I helped Athens by providing her with timber for the Greek fleet”…if at, we’re sure, a substantial sum that benefited Maceon. But Macedon resented Persia too and had been a victim! It provided the plausible deniability needed to elevate Philip as leader of the Go-and-get-Persia campaign.

Of course Athens was not keen on this. She still thought SHE should be leading the vengeance war, as she won the two most significant battles of the Greco-Persian Wars (Marathon in #1 and Salamis in #2). That Philip was out-maneuvering her at every turn for the hegemony of greater Greece was additionally galling.

When Philip decided to invade Persia is a point of great contention, but I think he had it in mind by the time of his extensive Balkan campaign (c. 341/40/39. when Alexander was left in Pella as regent). Much of that was to secure the Black Sea coast and conquer Perinthos and Byzantion (Athenian allies) in order to secure a bridgehead to Asia. He may have believed that the Athenian Isokrates’s oration letter to him was indicative that Athens could be won over as an ally, in order to provide the ships he needed but didn’t have. He knew Demosthenes a problem, but may not have believed fear of/resentment against Philip himself would unite Thebes and Athens (inveterate enemies) to oppose him at Chaironeia.

But that’s how it went. Philip won anyway and created the Corinthian League, whose purpose was the invasion of Persia and vengeance for the earlier Persian invasion of Greece. Was that Philip’s primary motivation? Oh, hell no. He wanted the MONEY/loot (and glory). But a campaign of retribution put a better face on it, and justified his usurpation of the Athenian navy, which he absolutely had to have to be successful.

When Philip was assassinated, Alexander simply took up where his father left off. He literally told the Corinthian League (when he reconvened them not long after Philip’s death), “Only the name of the king has changed….”

So yes, the propaganda wasn’t invented by Alexander, or even by Philip, but they used it to very good effect, as it allowed them to demand allies (and BOATS). Alexander didn’t dissolve the alliance and release those troops until after Darius’s death. And even then, he offered good pay to stay on with the rest of his conquests (which many did).

[helenadelacoeur]

My rediscovered love for Greek history - part one

'By the late sixth century Persia was firmly established in Europe

(...)

He certainly did cross the Danube on a bridge of boats

(...)

Herodotus seriously distorts the whole campaign, by representing it as essentially directed against the Scythians, and he makes Darius' motive the desire to revenge the Scythians for their incursion into Asia in the first half of the seventh century. That is interesting about Herodotus but it is not history. The real motive of Darius in extending his power into Europe, one divines, was simply to extend his power. The 'King in the great earth far and wide' was simply claiming his own, with suitable pomp. Armies in future years were to cross and recross the sea dividing Europe and Asia without the aid of a bridge. Mardonius' army returning from Plataea was not stranded in Europe in 479, although the bridges had been broken up, just as he was able to ship his land army across the Hellespont in 492. But Darius, in a supreme gesture of folie de grandeur, had to have a bridge, just as his successor had to. He would do nothing common or mean. The advance into Europe would be led by the Great King in person, just as the Emperor Claudius would do when Roman power formally established itself in Britain'.

George Cawkell, The Greek Wars. The failure of Persia, OXford University Press, 2005, 47-49.

[1996hhhhhhh]

The Peloponnesian War and The Persian War

This project is based on two wars i.e. The Peloponnesian War and The Persian War. The Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC) was an old Greek war by the Athenian-led Delian Association against the Peloponnesian Alliance led by Sparta. Lysander took the Athenian armada inside the Hellespont. Lysander then went to Athens and closed the Piraeus Harbor. Athens was doomed, and Sparta won the Battle of Peloponnesia in 404 BC. Persian conquests started in 499 BCE when Greeks in the Persian Empire has risen up in the middle of the Ionian Revolt. Athens, along with other Greek cities, gave help but was soon prevented from retreating after the conquest in 494 BCE. In this way, the Persians endured repeated killings because of the Greeks, driven with the help of Athenians. The Persian wars ended with the peace of 449 Callias, but this time, and because of the actions taken in the Persian wars, Athens had established itself an empire. The Persian Wars influenced the Greek city-states since they came beneath the administration of Athens and were to never once more attack the Persian Armed forces. The Peloponnesian wars influenced them when it driven to the decrease of Athenian control and proceeded contention.

Introduction:

The Peloponnesian War was fought between ancient Athens and Sparta (the winner) and its allies came in two stages, the first from c. 460 to 446 BCE and the most important period and war from 431 to 404 BCE. (Tom Moylan. 2013) Persia has also made proposals for Sparta, advertising funding for the construction of a seemingly challenging armada in Athens. (Tom Moylan. 2013) The conclusion of the Peloponnese war is that it was finally the victory of Sparta, then, and perhaps jokingly. (Tom Moylan. 2013)

The effects of the war were a turning point in ancient Greek. To define the Battle of Peloponnesia, start by going through a few of the most important events of the moment. Sparta was the most powerful city empire in ancient Greek with truly armed forces. Ancient Greek was divided into a framework of cities, with one person allowed, each city had to look at and discuss its own issues of demand. The development of Athens has created a crisis in Sparta and has been a major reason for Sparta to consider fighting Athens.

After the Persian wars, the Athenians asked Sparta to regenerate the long-distance separator, but the Spartans denied Athens' inquiry, after which the Athenians also formed a separatist, which gave Athens something. It is worth noting, a few members of the Peloponnesian Association, in particular, the Corinthians were outraged as Sparta imposed this peace treaty with the Thirty Years' Peace, and they felt that Sparta needed power. (Amira Ahmed. 2020)

The war did not end until 338 B.C. when Greece finally won. After the genocide claimed so many lives, Athens was basically unable to establish the military authority and quality needed to defeat the able-bodied Peloponnesian Alliance. While Greece's cities were shrinking, Greece's northern neighbor, Macedonia, was making rapid progress. In 353 B.C.

Macedonian Governor Philip II sent the attack to Greece. When Philip was assassinated by a Macedonian in 336 B.C., followed by his 20-year-old son, Alexander, the man's history was to be called “The Great One.” Alexander plotted his father's invasion of Persia. And two years after Philip's death, Alexander embarked on a 10-year campaign that eventually won the Persian Domain over.

Persian conquest began in 499 BCE when the Greeks of the Persian Empire revolted during the Ionian revolt. Athens, along with other Greek cities, sent help but was soon stopped in retreating after the conquest in 494 BCE. . (P. J. Rhodes. 2007)

Silver drilling contributed to the financing of a large Greek army that was able to defeat the Persian invasion and defeat the Persians altogether. (P. J. Rhodes. 2007) Thereafter, the Persians tolerated the Holocaust, the Athenians. The end of the Persian War driven by the rise of Athens as a pioneer of the Delian League. (P. J. Rhodes. 2007)

In 411 Athens itself was embroiled in political controversy. The Vote-based system has been removed by the oligarchical party. At the end of 411 Athenian navies was transformed, new ones from a few victories, taking the initiative to renew the exhibition law. (Amira Ahmed. 2020)The climax came in 405 when the Athenian navy was crushed in Aegospotami by the Auster armada under Lysander, who had received much help from the Persians. The conquest of Athens was probably a catastrophe in a war that wreaked havoc on the quality of Greek military service, and that is why Greece, a prosperous nation, was hidden for the last time. (Amira Ahmed. 2020)

Athens and Sparta once fought in the recent offensive of the Peloponnesian War (now called the Peloponnesian War) but agreed to a treaty, called the Thirty Years' Treaty, in 445. to take, after a long time, their alliances looking for unsettled peace. The length of the follow-up fight can be divided into two periods, divided by the sixth détente for a long time. (Amira Ahmed. 2020)

The first season we endured 10 for a long time and started with the Spartans. The Spartans also endured a change at sea. Encouraged by Agitator Cleon, the Athenians voted to kill the men of Mytilene and to oppress everyone, but the next day they killed them as rebel pioneers. The Australian occupations in the midst of long persecution were all unsuccessful but were taken over by the important city of Plataea in 427. (Amira Ahmed. 2020)

In 490 BC, a well-armed Persian army allied itself against Greece. He was given the task of oppressing Athens and Eretria since these [cities] had made a difference to the Greeks of Asia Minor. After the Persians defeated the Eretrians, they came to the plain of Marathon. When the Persians sent emissaries to demand oppression, about thirty provinces were united into an alliance in 481 B.C. they set their sights on each other. (Amira Ahmed. 2020)

But the alliance was as far south as Greece, Corinth, Athens, and Sparta, Greece. The crucial battle took place at sea between the Athenians [and the island] Salamis. (Amira Ahmed. 2020) As a veteran of the Athenian Armada, Themistokles had foreseen, large Persian ships jammed into the sound barrier and were struck by an easily controlled Greek armada.

History:

The battle of Peloponnese, (431-404 BCE), was fought between two warring cities in ancient Greece, Athens, and Sparta. (Tom Moylan. 2013) Sparta was a pioneer of the unification of the free nations that included most of the great arrival of power in the Peloponnese and central Greece, as well as the naval control of Corinth. the Athenians were better off financially than their opponents, because of the war-torn chest they had accumulated at the usual expense they received at their base. (Tom Moylan. 2013)

The turning point was the tragedy that the Athenians endured in Sicily. In any case, most of the pioneers controlled the Spartan peace offering, and the battle continued at sea with light arms and Athenians taking turns in costly victories. Athens was elected. (Tom Moylan. 2013) The conquest of Athens was probably a terrible catastrophe in a war that damaged the quality of the Greek army. (Tom Moylan. 2013)

The Persian wars against Greece have arisen since Darius, king of Persia, needed to expand his empire. Persian forces have been removed from Europe, examining the end of Persian development westward in the landmass (P. J. Rhodes. 2007). In addition, Ionian cities were liberated from Persian control. In addition, Ionian cities were liberated from Persian control. (P. J. Rhodes. 2007)

In spite of their victories, however, the ruins of a war-torn civil war loom large over the Hellenic lands. Started in 449 BCE, the Persians tried to suppress the conflicts between Athens and Sparta, and they bribed the authorities to obtain these points. (P. J. Rhodes. 2007)

This strategy was to handle the Greeks in order to stem the wave of impending wars on the Domain. (P. J. Rhodes. 2007) Their policy was usually fruitful, and there was no civil war between the Greeks and the Persians until 396 BCE when Spartan King Agesilaus briefly invaded Asia Minor. (P. J. Rhodes. 2007)

Similarities:

The Persian Wars and the Peloponnese War are similar. Both are opposed to world games. (Haley Daley. 2015) The beginning of the Peloponnesian War set in Greece's victory over the Persian Empire. (Haley Daley 2015 (Haley Daley. 2015)

Because of the Persian War, the Greeks were not able to maintain unity. During the Persian War in 480 BC, Athens' control was built by linking borders and with the help of its allies, they continued their Persian and Aegean invasions. (Haley Daley. 2015)

This took place in a battle, called as 'The To Start with Peloponnesian War' between Athens and Sparta, Corinth, the Aegean, and other provinces. The Peloponnese War sent fewer centers than the Persian War. What is remarkable about the Peloponnese war, wherever it is, is that it weakened Greece. (Haley Daley. 2015) After the fourth century BC, all of Greece was reduced to a war between them. (Haley Daley. 2015)

Differences:

During the Persian war in the year 480 BC, Athens' control was built by linking borders and with the aid of its allies continued its invasion of the Persian Ionian and Aegean bases. (A. Lecesse. 2013) Athens additionally built dividers around its base to save them. when the Persians fled to Greece. In 499 BC, Greek cities rebelled against Persia by making this show (Darius is governor). (A. Lecesse. 2013)

Some Greek cities sent in relief supplies, but the rebellion subsided. Darius promises revenge. 9 long after the revolt (490 BC) Darius invades Greece. T (A. Lecesse. 2013) started a war program, called "Persian Wars." The Greeks won the final battle (The War of Marathon), After the Persian wars have ended (480 BC), the collision of the framework of many cities. One of these was the "Delian Alliance." Each division has donated money to the federation. (A. Lecesse. 2013)

The Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC) began between the Athenian center and the Spartan-led Peloponnesian alliance. At the end of the war, at any rate, Athens financed the Greek world, thanks to a large Spartan position. (A. Lecesse. 2013) The thirty-first settlement was marked between Athens and Sparta in 446 BC. Athens was a very active part of the alliance, and they began to treat other people as ministers. (A. Lecesse. 2013)

Another league/alliance was the "Peloponnesian Alliance" which had several cities in southern Greece, one of which was Sparta. With the conquest of Athens, Sparta was the most active state province. They ruled Greece for nearly 30 years, sometimes just after the war. In 415 BC, Athens tried to expand its base but was defeated. Sparta took advantage of this and was attacked. By 404 BC, the war was over. (A. Lecesse. 2013)

Conclusion:

Finally, we can conclude that the Peloponnesian War was war between ancient Athens and Sparta and individual allies came in two ways, a war of attrition. Persian conquests started in 499 BCE when Greeks in the Persian Empire has risen up in the middle of the Ionian Revolt. Persian armies invaded Greek cities as they entered the Athenian Empire and were no longer to invade Persian forces. The Peloponnesian wars exerted a powerful influence on them during the Athenian revolt and continued conflict. In the aftermath of the Persian conquest, the Athenians had a choice. This integration was needed in the growth of democracy People were not equal, and as it was better they all seemed interested as citizens. In this way, it was a very different kind of popular government than the American way. An attempt failed. The Vote-based process was over, for now, set in motion.

[phoenixtears]

Problematizing ´The East´: We need to talk more about the Parthians.

When I told friends and family I wanted to write my BA thesis about the Parthian War from 161-66 AD usual answers were: 

- The Parthians? They were a enemy in forge of empires. („ooookay.“)

- I read about them in the bible. („really?“)

But most times it was:

- Who the hell are the Parthians?

Yes- I will try to answer the question in this essay. For starters: Parthia was an empire, locacted in the Middle-East and a ancient superpower, for many centuries on eye level with the Roman Empire and responsible for several Roman military desasters. So more interesting than „Who the hell were the Parthians?“ is the question „Why you never heard about it in history class?

This little “essay” will more focus on this overall state of not knowing and what it tells about our traditions in seiing and teaching history, about our image of modern and ancient ´world order´. It argues that the Parthian War is just an example of dividing the world in „Western“ and „Eastern“ societies. Still modern historians and history teachers making themself representives of an very old point of view without even reflecting it. So we reach the point in this essay where can I reassure you it´s- it´s not (entirely) your fault.I also didn´t really talked about this in my thesis. So I will talk about it now.

East vs. West is one of the most known examples of ethnogenesis. Some confuse it with ´racism´- and to be fair there can be a racist extreme of it esspecially when there are prejudices and judgmental components implicated, which (like we all know) happens everyday. But ethnogenesis in scientific terms starts with phrasing values, attributes and connecting them with geographical origin.

It´s a resource of orientation, which is quite natural, but it´s also important to realize: There is a time before ethnogenesis and also ethnogenesis can change over time. Two examples. The Greek – and the Parthians.

When we think about the Greek we often talk about the beginning of democratic and western values. Because of this some reminders:

-        Greek democracy was really far away from everything we would call today „democratic“. There are also some scientists believing roots or at least hints of democratic ideas can be found in the Ancient middle east (for example the Babylonian Empire).

-        Speaking of other ´western´ values: Before 600 BC the Greek seem to have been part of a lager entity which connected the eastern mediterran with the big kingdoms in the Middle East and Central Asia. We had something called peer policy in which the rulers of the different kingdoms shared similar values, cultural ideas and practices to keep their empires going. That explains a lot of similarities archaeologicans have for found in Mykene, Judäa and the ancestor oft he Babylonian Empire. A student of classics will notice early that many things we considered being „Greek“ existed before... thousands of miles away beyond the Mediterran Sea.

-        The last and more important point: The republic of Greece was founded in 1827. In ancient times they was never a Greek state and therefore no greek nationalism. So even when we start talking about the GREEK it´s a consequence of a ethnogenesis.. It´s not even true when we talk about Greek and mean the population of roman province Achaia (= geographically a big part of modern Greece). In the time I researched for my BA (so 50-250 AD) being Greek was above all a cultural label. One could call himself Greek and lived in the province of Syria, Aegyptusor or even Britannia. All he needed to do was to read the „right“ books, manage rhetorical abilites and most important... to talk and write in attic greek. In contrast to coine – a kind of ancient aquivalent to kiezdeutsch – attic greek was spoken by the philosophers and politicans of the forth and fifht century BC. Language was important. For a reason the translation of barbaroi is just „not Greek speaking“. Things seem settled but there was a ongoing debate about what were the right books, the right way to talk ... and in general the nature of paideia (greek education).

The forth century is also the first time when we find the world divided in East and West- written down by Hippocratus. The „father of medicine“ shared his thoughts about four winds blowing in different parts and directions of the world and also how the local climate influenced the state of mind of its human inhabitants. In his opinion because of this the people living in „Greece“ and West of Greece were more zivilized than the people in the East. In doing this he created a mental map that hasn´t changed that much ideologically to the present day.

But Hippocratus text has also an interesting context. About 20 years before his birth Xerxes started a Invasion with his a big Persian Army but was defeated at the battle of Salamis. Starting from these days the Greek determined the image people associate till today with the people living in „the East“. – The cruel Persians. The timid Persians. The uncivilized Persians.

Why is this important when we talk about the Parthians? The Parthians – like the Seleucid before them- and the Sassanids after them belong to the alternating, western-asian superpowers ruling over large parts what had been Persia. They all were:

-        Big. And big in the Parthian case means from Irak -to-Northern Iran-And-Caspian Sea-big. When you look at a map it´s a similar size than the Roman Empire. Also like the Romans it was mostly little „kingdoms“ being connected to a great entity. What we don´t know was whether there was a counterpart to the political role of being suddenly a „Roman citizen“ or how much the inhabitants of the Parthian empire saw themself as ´Parthians´. Archaeologically we definitely have cultural similarities in different parts oft he Parthian Empire and from the first century AD something called „Parthian style“ (in art, buildings etc.)

-        They had as well (cultural and economical) exchange with the Romans – and because Alexander the Great moreover Greek influences- but also intense military tensions. Both parties tried several times expanding their empire on the eastern (or western) border. Armenia was established as a neutral „puffer zone“. It was a weak compromise and soon enough things started escalating- again and again.

-        From a modern historian point of view the source situation really IS a problem. The case of the Parthians is worse than it is with the Persians. They are pieces of arts, inscripts, buildings… but no written sources to be found. The reasons behind this problem are also different ones:  

Just in the last century the focus of european historians slowly changed. They were just a few classicists being able to read Accadian or other middle eastern ancient languages. It wasn´t necessary to have anything else than Latin or Greek in your showcase- because Greek and Roman History was the only “important” parts of studies in antiquity. That’s still the impression of nowadays school education.  

But in contrast to the Persians the Sassanid´ propaganda was playing also a big role in erasing the Parthians from collective memory. They tried to make Parthian sources vanish to outshine then- successfully. Most sources we have about the Parthians are from writers in early principate. Again: Written by the winners.

 But is pretending that they´re weren´t there, just because we know not much about them and the are far away from Europa, is the right way? I don´t think so. In my BA I notice something interesting: Much like Alexander the Great, who framed the Persians as the “Arch Enemy” and his campaign as a “act of revenge” similar motifs appeared in the first and second century AD were used to justify war against the Parthians. The Roman (and Greek sophists) also stylized the Parthians as cruel and barbaric people. Among others the river Euphrates was seen as a cultural border and beyond them lay the Parthian empire, untouched by paideia, exotic, but strange and terrifying on the same time. More important: Everything that wasn´t and isn´t “us”- western-european. Reminds you of something? Try to think about it, anytime someone tells you migration doesn´t work because they people from this part of the world (especially the Middle East) are just too different from us. Anytime you read on posters about the “Patriotische Europäer gegen die Islamisierung des ABENDLANDES” (Pegida).

I´m not claiming people and culture didn´t develop from antiquity. For example there definitely were changes with the Rise of Islam. But not to forget: Like Christianity Islam developed from the same monotheism religion and still has many parallels to the our worldview.

What I wanted to adress is that the idea of a “superior Western society vs. a undercivilized Eastern society” isn´t new and this mental map, dividing the world into mostly two parts is not a natural one. There was a time before this perspective and who knows? Maybe someday there can be a time when we can overcome it. Recognizing and reflecting must be the first step. Not only in universities but also in the class room.

[mapsontheweb]

The Greek World during the Persian Wars, 500 - 479 BCE.

The Greco-Persian Wars (also often called the Persian Wars) were a series of conflicts between the Achaemenid Empire of Persia and Greek city-states that started in 499 BCi and lasted until 449 BC. The collision between the fractious political world of the Greeks and the enormous empire of the Persians began when Cyrus the Great conquered the Greek-inhabited region of Ionia in 547 BC. Struggling to rule the independent-minded cities of Ionia, the Persians appointed tyrants to rule each of them. This would prove to be the source of much trouble for the Greeks and Persians alike.

In 499 BC, the tyrant of Miletus, Aristagoras, embarked on an expedition to conquer the island of Naxos, with Persian support; however, the expedition was a debacle and, pre-empting his dismissal, Aristagoras incited all of Hellenic Asia Minor into rebellion against the Persians. This was the beginning of the Ionian Revolt, which would last until 493 BC, progressively drawing more regions of Asia Minor into the conflict. Aristagoras secured military support from Athens and Eretria, and in 498 BC these forces helped to capture and burn the Persian regional capital of Sardis. The Persian king Darius the Great vowed to have revenge on Athens and Eretria for this act. The revolt continued, with the two sides effectively stalemated throughout 497–495 BC. In 494 BC, the Persians regrouped, and attacked the epicentre of the revolt in Miletus. At the Battle of Lade, the Ionians suffered a decisive defeat, and the rebellion collapsed, with the final members being stamped out the following year.

Seeking to secure his empire from further revolts and from the interference of the mainland Greeks, Darius embarked on a scheme to conquer Greece and to punish Athens and Eretria for the burning of Sardis. The first Persian invasion of Greece began in 492 BC, with the Persian general Mardonius successfully re-subjugating Thrace and conquering Macedon before several mishaps forced an early end to the rest of the campaign.[4] In 490 BC a second force was sent to Greece, this time across the Aegean Sea, under the command of Datis and Artaphernes. This expedition subjugated the Cyclades, before besieging, capturing and razing Eretria. However, while en route to attack Athens, the Persian force was decisively defeated by the Athenians at the Battle of Marathon, ending Persian efforts for the time being.

Darius then began to plan to completely conquer Greece, but died in 486 BC and responsibility for the conquest passed to his son Xerxes. In 480 BC, Xerxes personally led the second Persian invasion of Greece with one of the largest ancient armies ever assembled. Victory over the allied Greek states at the famous Battle of Thermopylae allowed the Persians to torch an evacuated Athens and overrun most of Greece. However, while seeking to destroy the combined Greek fleet, the Persians suffered a severe defeat at the Battle of Salamis. The following year, the confederated Greeks went on the offensive, defeating the Persian army at the Battle of Plataea, and ending the invasion of Greece.

The allied Greeks followed up their success by destroying the rest of the Persian fleet at the Battle of Mycale, before expelling Persian garrisons from Sestos (479 BC) and Byzantium (478 BC). The actions of the general Pausanias at the siege of Byzantium alienated many of the Greek states from the Spartans, and the anti-Persian alliance was therefore reconstituted around Athenian leadership, called the Delian League. The Delian League continued to campaign against Persia for the next three decades, beginning with the expulsion of the remaining Persian garrisons from Europe. At the Battle of the Eurymedon in 466 BC, the League won a double victory that finally secured freedom for the cities of Ionia. However, the League's involvement in an Egyptian revolt (from 460–454 BC) resulted in a disastrous defeat, and further campaigning was suspended. A Greek fleet was sent to Cyprus in 451 BC, but achieved little, and when it withdrew the Greco-Persian Wars drew to a quiet end. Some historical sources suggest the end of hostilities was marked by a peace treaty between Athens and Persia, the Peace of Callias.

[strategischwelt]

Civilized All Stars II (part 1)

Cast 

Daniel "Dan" Roosevelt

Elizabeth "Elisa" Greenhill

Mary Alexandrina "Merlyn" Wilson (Boudicca of Celts)

Alexander "Alex" Jackson (Alexander the Great of Macedon)

Carla Roosevelt

Kleio "Cleo" Cosmatos (Cleopatra of Egypt)

Theodora "Dora" Angelides (Theodora of Byzantine)

Gustav Adolphus "Gus" Erikson, Jr.

Prof. Nicolas Petrof (Pericles of Athens)

Natalia Petrova (Petrof’s wife)

Mrs. Kate Williams

Gerry Roosevelt (Teddy Roosevelt)

Rajendra "Raj" Gandhi (Mahatma Gandhi)

Vicky Harrison (Victoria)

Edward Washington (George Washington)

Franklin Joseph "Frank" Roosevelt. (Franklin Delano Roosevelt)

Ellie Roosevelt (Eleanor Roosevelt)

Sean O'Curtin (John Curtin)

James Lincoln

Charles V’s wife (Isabella of Portugal)

Sonia Zhaparova (Tomyris)

Suleiman Kishk ibn ar-Rashyid (Saladin)

Jamal Akbar ibn ar-Rahman (Gilgamesh)

Mary Tudor of England

Nathan Wellington (a fictional mayor of New York City)

Mark Romer (Trajan)

Messenger

Spartans

Townspeople

Reporter

The Glorious Ones:

Phil Lukeson (Philip II)

Freddy Browns (Frederick Barbarossa)

Pete Cosgrave (Peter the Great)

Peter Alencar (Pedro II)

George Nzinga (Mvemba a Nzinga/Afonso I)

Gladys Cosgrave (Jadwiga)

Jane Lavigne (Catherine de Medici)

Elisa Castillo (Isabella the Catholic)

The Spokesman (real name: unknown)

Narrator

The other leaders of Civilization franchises:

Mansa Musa of Mali

Gorgo of Sparta (as masked queen)

Dido of Carthage (as tour guide)

Pocatello of Shoshone

Enrico Dandolo of Venice

Wu Zetian of China

Pacal of Mayans

Sejong the Great of Korea

Maria I of Portugal (deceased)

Prince Henry the Navigator of Portugal (deceased)

Suleiman the Magnificent of Ottoman

King Ramkhamhaeng the Great of Siam

Justinian I of Byzantine

Pachacuti of Incans

William of Netherlands

Haile Selassie of Ethiopia

Maria Theresa of Austria

Sitting Bull of Native America

Attila of Huns

Ahmad al-Mansyur of Morocco

Ashurbanipal of Assyria

Montezuma II of Aztecs

Hatshepsut of Egypt

Harald Hardrada of Norway (as Vicious Mecha-Hardrada)

[Strategy game launched: Battle of Gaugamela, October 1, 331 BC, Alexander planned to conquer the Achaemenid Empire]

Cleo: Gaugamela, one of the Persian Campaign that Darius III negotiated to Alexander. [Darius prepared for the battle against Alexander] In the advantage: Alex’s army was joined by their allies from Greeks and the Balkans. They learnt to use launching the counter-attack of infantry. And Hetairoi prepared to the battle. [Greek army against the Persian invasion, they fought against each other] After the defeat of Persia, Alex declared himself with the great pride the “King of Asia”.

[In anachronistic news]

[people being proud of his triumph]

Reporter: Congratulations, Alex. You’ve conquered the Achaemenid Empire. Fortunately, you discover Darius’ death which he’s saddened to see a foe.

Alex: I claim to destroy the Achaemenid Empire after its defeat.

[in a real world (present time)]

Cleo: But Professor Petrof discovered the cultured battle and you, Tomi, who defeated Cyrus during the Asian Civil Wars.

Tomi: How dare you broke our promise?

Dora: That was your revenge to him, Tomi.

Alex: Seriously? If you are looking for the culture bomb and weapons, you will be sued!

Dora: Well, well, well. Next time you can’t believe this when you and we look for the treasure out of the ground, not? Hahahahahaha…

Cleo: It’s time for the end of your revenge!

[In March 31, 2017, at 8:54 pm]

[The townspeople and the Spartan bloc face off]

Sean: Hey, Spartans! We have the deaf queen Isabella. Give her to you all!

Spartan (leader): Now, we will sue the conquest!

Spartan soldier 1: Take down your note!

Dan: There isn’t note of ours. We have to bring her to the Glorious Ones.

Spartan soldier 1: Then she must take off her cloak and mask or the count of ten nuclear bombs being launched! One!

Ellie: No! If Isabella is revealed on that game, we’d get nuked!

Spartan soldier 1: Two!

Frank: Darn it! She’s revealed on the Civ6, we’ll be nuked!

Spartan soldier 1: Three!

Sean: Stop! [*pause* turning to the cloaked queen] We are sorry, Izzy. You have to take a risk and take off your cloak and mask before them.

[unknown queen takes off her mask, and pocket hearing aid. Cloak is taken off and drops away. Charles V’s wife has stepped out of the cloaked queen costume]

Dan: This is it, Isabella of Castile.

Spartan soldier 2: That’s not Castilian queen, that’s Holy Roman Empress.

Townspeople: Oooohhhh…

Dan: That’s Philip II’s mother.

[Charles V’s wife does flamenco dance]

Elisa: Oh, darn…

[Charles V’s wife stops dancing]

Townspeople: Oooohhhh…

[turn around to townspeople and she slowly applauses]

Charles V’s wife: Hola, townspeople. How are you?

Elisa: Gosh, we’re fine!

Sean: Dude, we get wife of Charles V, not?

Dan: Hey… you said that we were going to hand Castilian queen to Jane Smith. We promise Philip II that Isabella would stay safety in the Mighty-secret Box!

Sean: Dan, what’s happening with her and the Spartans?

Principal Washington: Elisa, say something to the chaotic day.

Gerry: Don’t make the other people refuse to get bullied!

Dan: Why weren’t we going to have to let Izzy revealed on that game? You screwing bastard?!

[sounds of thunder and wind are heard]

Spartan (leader): Where the freak is she?!

[again, everyone screams]

Sean: What’s happening?!

[screaming again]

[at 9:03 pm] [the Hall of Glorious Ones]

Narrator: Meanwhile, at the hall of Glory…

[inside, Catherine moans while reading a comic again]

Philip: Catherine, stop reading a secret comic book! That’s a trouble to us!

Catherine: Um… well, you have reacted to the pairing couples on CivHub*!

[Note: CivHub, a fictional website which has Topic, Video, Music, News, Couplings, etc.]

Frederick: Pairing couples? That’s embarrassing!

Philip: No, Freddy! Pairing couples aren’t like reading doujinshi, stranger!

[Peter runs into the meeting room]

Peter: Philip Lukeson*!

[Note: Philip II’s descendant name]

The others: What?

Peter: The error signal has occurred!

[The Glorious Ones leave their seats and head for the screen]

Philip: On the Screen of Glory!

Ar-Rasyid: Glorious Ones! Help us!

Jadwiga: What’s wrong with the vicious?

Ar-Rasyid: The Vicious Mecha-Hardrada is attacking our city!

[Johnson’s Garden Shop is shown, Vicious Mecha-Hardrada is upset with the police soldiers who defend that shop]

Catherine: That’s not fair!

Afonso: It’s Harald Hardrada!

[Vicious Mecha-Hardrada picks up a bus and car and crushes the center end off. He burns the minimarket after all the costumers and cassiers get out.]

Frederick: That’s just no more minutes!

Pedro: That’s like the end time. What do you mean his ability rough?

Philip: Ha ha! I don’t know, *pause* Peddy.

[the other members laugh]

Pedro: [insulted] I am Pedro! [the other members laugh again, but their mission is redrawn to the screen]

Ar-Rasyid: The Glorious Ones! Help us!

Philip: Geez, that’s where the people took Isabella. We have to stop him! [open the door, smoke gone out] On the power of Glorious Rangers! [later, the Glorious Rangers prepare for battle against Vicious Mecha-Hardrada]

[at 9:15 pm] [EC Office: Laboratory]

[Prof. Petrof is inside learning on the science and technology]

Petrof: “Once upon a time in the laboratory… how the scientists used the charismatic power of the world and why they happened to us”. [Nicolas’ wife, Natalia is showing toward him and gives his preferred coffee] O, Natalia…, you have given a cold coffee to me. You’re my faithful wife. [they walk and move to the astronomical room] Then, I use flashdrive to scan the astronomical policy. [bell goes off] What sound’s that? Natalia, stay here. [bell goes off again and Petrof looks through the speaker] Is anybody outside?

[Petrof holds walkie talkie]

[Vicky (as a mysterious woman) wears an eye mask and hold walkie talkie]

Vicky: Welcome, professor. Had you given prizes to your companions?

Petrof: Um… uh… um… yes. I had given them prizes for 5 days.

Vicky: Professor, please, meet the former students who missed you. And declare invitation to your friends and family.

Petrof: I saw you could.

Vicky: Have you already sent the culture message to the Alex and his companions?

Petrof: Of course.

[Vicky takes off an eye mask and turn off a walkie talkie. Later, she quickly open the door]

Vicky: I’m back!

Petrova: Nike*! Why are you here?

[*Note: Vicky’s other name]

Petrof: N- Nike Harrison?

Vicky: Ah… you know my other nickname. I’m an English waitress who lived in London.

Petrova: So, you conquered the Greek factions or else, I mean you served your favorite dishes.

Vicky: Of course, Natalia. [turns toward the door] Close the door and continue to talk.

[at 9:28 pm]

[Time Square, Vicious Mecha-Hardrada rounds a corner as townspeople run away from him]

[people crowding, then disappearing]

[one lone leader (Mansa Musa) walks toward the giant robot as a bully]

Mansa Musa: Stop! My name’s Musa of Mali. I’d like to say “Stop bullying the world”.

[the giant robot walks and laughs]

Hardrada: You are a bullied leader, right now!

Mansa Musa: Haaaaaaah!

[Musa is bullied and runs away from the giant robot]

[at 9:29 pm]

[EC Lodge]

Narrator: Meanwhile, at the Machine of Judgement, which is EC Lodge.

Jenny: Hah!? The civilized leaders can get bully, war, and violent too! Mr. Roosevelt?

[Roosevelt Hotel, Gerry and the other townspeople locating on the 7th floor]

Gerry:  Jen, please call Harry Hardrada off! [everyones cringes and screams as Vicious Mecha-Hardrada walks around] He’s destroying everything.

Jenny: We’ll call him off when you give Isabella to us!

Gerry: But we don’t have Isabella!

Jenny: Not good! Give her to us or Harry will kill you all!

Mary: No problem, Jane!

[at 9:42 pm]

[People crowd and scream. Dan and Elisa see Mark Romer locating at the front door of the NYC Apartment, Manhattan]

Dan: Mr. Romer! What are you looking for Izzy?!

Romer: She’ll be right here now.

[a door opened, a deaf queen Isabella steps out, a black rectangle with “CENSORED” on it covering her eyes]

Dan: Thankfully, are you okay, Izzy?

Elisa: No, Dan. Isabella isn’t safe here, but-

Dan: Wait a second! The Spartans and the civilized leaders want her piece. I don’t know where to go!

Romer: What do you say?

Dan: Izzy has to be safe. So the Spartans and civilized leaders want her. We have to go!

[they all run off]

[at 9:49 pm]

[New York City. Vicious Mecha-Hardrada’s right foot is crushing Manny’s Restaurant and everyone runs out. He then destroys Daisy’s drugstore after everyone gets out of there.]

James Lincoln: He’s going to get the Central Park next.

Hatshepsut: Aaaaahhh…, the Glorious Ones.

[The Glorious Ones fly into the city]

Philip: Stop destroying everything, Harald Hardrada! Laser Tonitruum!

[Philip’s laser hurts Harry. But Hardrada  looks around to Philip and just laughs more]

Hardrada: Hahahaha…! I can’t take a damage, liars!

Philip: Peter! Try your unique technique!

Peter: Zheleznyye puli!

[Peter shoots into Mecha’s body. But he gets angry after getting shot]

Peter: His anger is too strong!

Afonso: Watch out! Harald Hardrada is using a giant machine gun!

[Hardrada unleashes a giant machine gun. It makes the Glorious Ones avoid its bullets]

[at 9:54 pm][EC Office: Laboratory]

Petrof: Nike, your mother didn’t know where she protected you.

Vicky: Where?

Petrof: It was an incident at the mansion.

[bell goes off]

Petrof: Who’re those?

[quickly opens the door]

Elisa: Professor, this is Isabella of Castile. [Petrof closes the door] We want you to clone her, so we can give her to the Spartans and Harry Hardrada.

Petrof: O, that’s pretty miraculous.

Vicky: What? The clone machine?

Elisa: Vicky, an important deaf queen Isabella has an issue with a civilized humiliation!

Petrova: Nike, those leaders want you to stop the Spartans’ ability.

[to be continued]

[jeannereames]

Hello Dr. Reames!

Like many of us who follow you on this Hell-site we call home, I started watching Netflix's Alexander: The Making of a God. I'm an awfully shy person, and have been meaning to say hello, but a deadly concoction of anxiety and imposter syndrome has kept me away until a part of the docuseries lit a burning fire of a question.

I'm an Early Modern historian (18th century France), and although I have an obsession with Alexander the Great (going as far as begging my parents from around age 10 to 18 to legally change my name to Alexander) I never took a deep academic dive into the ancient Mediterranean world.

I think it was episode 2 where Alexander and Darius finally face each other at Issus, and after the battle Alexander has the captured "Greeks" (I can't remember now if he said Greeks or Macedonians) from Darius' army killed for fighting on the "wrong side." This kind of rubbed me the wrong way, especially when they switch to the talking heads and they kind of touch on it being known that people from the Greek poleis were mercenaries and were throughout the known Mediterranean world. That scene had a sort of 'Alexander as a Macedonian Nationalist' feel, and I assumed that Alexander was more open to the blending of cultures or at least there wasn't a single correct way to live and rule. That whole sequence of scenes felt contradictory: the mercenary system is well known yet a betrayal against "blood brothers"? Would Alexander actually have mercenaries executed for being hired by Persia?

Thank you for your time!

I'm glad you decided to finally step forward and ask a question! Nice to "meet" you.

Ah, yes, this is a matter of Real Politik.

After Granikos, a number of Greek mercenaries were captured, although their commander, Memnon, got away himself as he’d have been on horseback. Alexander had the men executed.

Greeks had served as mercenaries in Asia as far back as the Assyrian Sargonids. In fact, arguably, the archaic full hoplite panoply developed to fight on the broad plains of the middle east, not in Greece. (See John Hale’s chapter “Not Patriots, Not Farmers, Not Amateurs” in Men of Bronze, Kagan and Viggiano, eds., from Princeton; I find his argument convincing.) And, of course, Xenophon’s famous Anabasis told about the flight west of Greek mercenaries who’d served under Cyrus the Younger in his disastrous clash with his brother Artaxerxes for the throne.

For Alexander, the problem was that he—or really his father—had positioned this campaign as retribution against Persia for Persia’s earlier invasion of Greece, especially that under Xerxes. The invasion was, officially, under the aegis of the Corinthian League, with the Macedonian king just the hegemon. That made it a “Greek” campaign. This was all propaganda of course, but important for Philip, then Alexander, to maintain as it gave a patina of acceptability, not a naked power grab for more territory. While conquest wasn’t looked on then nearly as badly as it is now, it helped to have at least a plausible excuse.

His own troops included a number of Greek allies. After Chaironeia, they didn’t really have a choice. But a lot of Greeks were not happy to be in the Corinthian League. Sparta outright refused and would later be the center of an anti-Macedonian revolt.

At Granikos, the Persians had more Greek mercenaries than Alexander had Greek allies! (If one doesn’t count the Thessalian horse.) The optics were really bad. Ergo, as I think it was Carolyn who pointed out, Alexander had to send a clear message that fighting for the Persians against “the Greeks” wasn’t an option. In the Greek mind, mercenaries had always occupied a liminal status: not fully trusted because they fought for pay, but typically better than citizen troops, so used extensively post-Peloponnesian War. It was easy for Alexander to cast them as “just in it for the money” and as traitors to the Greek Cause. Like Thebes in the earlier Greco-Persian Wars, they’d “Medized,” which had a similar force to calling an American a “commie” in the 1950s.

The executions weren’t well-received in the rest of Greece, and resistance continued until it came to a head a couple years later with Agis’s Revolt (Agis III was the Spartan king who led it.). But Alexander was never afraid to send a harsh message when he needed to: Thebes, Tyre, Persepolis…. Philip did too. He could be just as brutal (Potidaia, Amphipolis, Stagiera), and Alexander learned well from him how to use carrot and stick.

So that’s what was going on there. Alexander was trying to turn Darius’ Greek mercenaries (who were some of the best troops in Asia Minor), and to send a message back HOME not to unite behind him and cut his supply lines. This was not successful; in fact, if Curtius can be believed, the Greek mercenaries were more loyal to Darius after Gaugamela than Bessus and friends. They figured they couldn’t go over to ATG, so they stuck with Darius who’d treated them well. Ironically, these same guys later did surrender after Darius’ death and were pardoned because, by then, showing clemency worked better for him than punishment.

Due to time constraints, and the desire of the showrunner to focus on Alexander and Darius, a lot of the details behind the campaign weren’t explored. So to the average reader, it looks like it was just Macedonians deciding to invade Persia because Persia killed Philip, although Philip says before he’s murdered that he wanted Alexander back for the Persian expedition. Not sure the casual viewer caught that. But this isn’t entirely wrong, as it really WAS a Macedonian campaign covered in the sheep’s skin of “Greek revenge.” Nothing is shown of ATG’s Greek campaigns, not even the infamous siege of Thebes because, again, the creators wanted it to be a clash of Macedon and Persia.

Alexander’s career is just so sprawling it’s really impossible to cover everything in limited time. But I hope that helps to contextualize why the Greek mercenaries were killed, and why it was presented as being traitors to the cause.

[jeannereames]

Hello Dr. Reames! Why do you think Alexander never set his sights on the conquest of Sicily - a rich island with longstanding Greek presence? Is it because when he came to the throne the plan to invade Persia was already on its way? I understand that Rome was a backwater town at this point and that Persia was the bigger prize, but Sicily always remained rich and hotly disputed

Inertia had a lot to do with Alexander’s choice, plus SIZE of the conquest, plus a plausible reason for the attack. I’m going to address these backwards.

Sicily, at least in the east, was—as you note—Greek, it’s largest city, Syracuse, Corinth’s most famous (and successful) colony. If conquest was still a valid reason for war in his world, increasingly parameters were put on it. We may understand these as window dressing concealing motives often economic (“follow the money,” ancient version). Yet by the 4th century, attacks on “fellow Greek” city-states needed some sort of rationale beyond naked ambition—often a current or historical beef.

Hence, Philip’s reason for attacking Persia (all about the money) was vengeance for the Greco-Persian Wars of over a century prior.

Another example, with Sicily in particular: Athens attacked Syracuse during the Peloponnesian War because she wanted Sicilian timber (for naval construction), after Brasidas of Sparta had convinced Perdikkas II of Macedon to cut off Macedonian timber—which had been Athens’ supply since the Greco-Persian Wars. Yet Athens justified the attack because Syracuse was a daughter-city of Corinth and Corinth was a member of the Peloponnesian league. Not to mention the war began due to Athenian-Corinthian aggression. So, by extension, Syracuse was tagged as an enemy of the Delian League (e.g., Athens’ not-so-covert empire), and ripe for hostilities.

Alexander didn’t have a ready-made excuse to attack Sicily. He probably could have found one, if he’d really wanted to, but this brings me to my second point.

Sicily is just not that big. And if some of her cities were wealthy enough, they didn’t begin to compare to Persia. When it comes to Alexander, “Think small” was never his modus operandi. LOL. Sicily would have been regarded like the Greek city-states of Anatolia (Asia Minor): a worthy acquisition…on the way to Bigger and Better. Yet Sicily lay west…not on the way to Bigger and Better. Just then. (more below)

Last, and the real reason: simple inertia.

Persia was the campaign his father had planned for probably a decade, and had fought south Greece to line up support for, culminating in the Battle of Chaironeia and the League of Corinth. Alexander did have to spend his first two years re-pacifying the Thracian and Illyrian north, not to mention re-fight Thebes to keep the south quiet … but PERSIA was what he’d been hearing about for years—what all Philip’s alliances were formed to pounce on.

To suddenly change and set his sights west on Sicily wouldn’t have made much sense, not to mention it would have alienated some of the city-states he needed (particularly his naval allies). He couldn’t have sold it as a “Panhellenic” crusade in revenge for the Greco-Persian War.

So, basically, I doubt it would ever have occurred to Alexander to sail west to attack Sicily when Persia was the bigger—and long planned upon—prize.

Now, let me add that—if academic speculation is correct and Alexander was setting up a campaign against Carthage near the end of his life—it’s quite likely that Sicily, and especially Syracuse, would have figured into that…but as allies, just as later with Rome. Carthage had long held the western part of Sicily, and struggled with the Greeks in the east for control of the whole. Conflicts with Carthage are why Syracuse invited in Rome for what became the First Punic War.

By the end of his life, and after Agis’s Revolt was crushed, Alexander was such a power, the Greek city-states had mostly given up opposing him. They contented themselves with snarky remarks and symbolic gestures—until after ATG’s death, when they rose up to try and oppose Antipatros in the Lamian War…which failed.

Yet if we could suppose Alexander had recovered from his last illness and did attack Carthage, Syracuse (et al.) would have been all over that. They’d have stood to benefit handsomely in territorial acquisitions. And at that point in time, Alexander probably was the only power that could have beaten Carthage on the water.

Hope this helps to explain why Alexander’s focus was always Persia.

A last thing: the nature of the Greek landscape, with the formidable Pindus Mountains down the center, had divided the peninsula east and west for centuries. The city-states on the east fronted the Aegean Sea, while those on the west fronted the Corinthian and Adriatic Seas. This affected both colonization and conquest ambitions. So eastern city-states tended to look east and western (including the Peloponnesos) tended to look west.

Macedon looked east. By contrast, Epiros looked west. That’s why Alexander of Epiros went to Italy while his nephew went to Persia. Never underestimate the impact of simple geography on history in the ancient world.

[jeannereames]

What if... (Alexander alternate history)

"What if Alexander hadn't died" has been a popular question for ages. Livy (briefly) toyed with the idea of an Alexander-Rome match-up. (Guess who Livy thinks would win?) More recently renowned historian Arnold Toynbee wrote a long chapter in his Some Problems in Greek History, with his own hypothetical clash between Alexander and Rome, given what was actually going on in central Italy at that time. Unlike Livy, Toynbee saw Rome as weak, and suggested he'd have allied with them, and the Etruscans too, moving against the Samnites, then on to conquer Sicily and face Carthage--at that point, the Big Bad in the West, and for whom he had a bee in his bonnet for their earlier support of Tyre. It's an entirely probable scenario.

The only professionally published fictional alternate history about Alexander is Melissa Scott's A Choice of Destinies. She backs up the point of change from Alexander's death to some years earlier, when he was in Baktria, using a Greek revolt to bring him back home. Her picture of the Roman-Macedonian alliance owes to Toynbee, but isn't exactly the same, and yes, he goes after Carthage there, too. If you've not read it, I recommend it.

Some while back, for Gene Borza's birthday, I wrote a different "What if" that, instead of "What if Alexander had lived" to "What if Philip had died" at Chaironeia, the Macedonians lost, and Alexander was taken captive, then given to Demosthenes as his personal slave. Maybe I'll clean it up at some point and sell it independently on Amazon.

But the "What If" I'd really like to see is one of these:

* Alexander catches Darius during his flight from the Battle of Issos and takes him prisoner and/or kills him.

* Alexander catches Darius on the battlefield at Gaugamela and kills him.

No, I don't think either would have resulted in smooth-sailing for ATG. But it would have been a different set of problems.

If he'd killed Darius at Issos, the West might have gone over to him more quickly. BUT I expect Darius's brother (Oxyathres) might have taken the throne in his place. (The little boy Ochus was his only direct heir--now in Alexander's hands.) I don't think Alexander would have stopped with just the west, but it might have scrambled the lines.

A clean victory at Gaugamela might have brought Persia temporarily into line, but I expect the N/NE territories would still have revolted (Ekbatana to Baktria/Sogdia), and perhaps had more time to organize, especially without Bessus bearing the sin of "king killer." Would Alexander have been forced to live without these edges of Persia? The Baktrian Revolt really began after he was already in the region. If he'd faced a united opposition in very difficult territory... He might have decided to back off and claim "Mission Accomplished" with the taking of Persepolis, which he later used as the symbolic end of the Greco-Macedonian "Campaign of Revenge." Would he have gone back, plopped down in Babylon, and started contemplating war against Carthage? (And Arabia?)

Anyway, some fun speculation, if anybody feels included to go write an new Alexander alternate history.