>Artaxerxes III Ochus of Persia /ˌɑːrtəˈzɜːrksiːz/ c. 425 BC – 338 BC; (Old Persian: ARATAXASHASSA Artaxšaçā)[2] was the Great King of Persia and the eleventh king of the Achaemenid Empire, as well as the first Pharaoh of the 31st dynasty of Egypt.
>He was the son and successor of Artaxerxes II and was succeeded by his son, Arses of Persia (also known as Artaxerxes IV). His reign coincided with the reign of Philip II in Macedon and Nectanebo II in Egypt.
From what I understand, he was generally viewed as a highly energetic and effective king, able to return the Persian Empire back to a more stable state, saw a lot of success in restoring the prestige and power of the Persians as the world's greatest power; this includes regaining lost territory from both the Spartans and Athenians, recovering the Ionian Greek colonies and most of coastal Asia Minor and reconquering Egypt.
Aterxerxes III was also able to crush several rebellions which were backed by large mercenary bands of Greek soldiers at Cyprus and Sidon. But more relevant to anything else here, he was able to weaken and curb the power of the western satraps/governors and reduce their household and provincial standing armies so reduce the possibility of rebellion. And he was able to once warned about Philip II's threat, checked his advances in Greece until his assassination.
How much different would it have been if the hyper-competent Atarxerxes III, who was a noted soldier and experienced general; had faced Philip II or Alexander instead of his weak successor, Darius III?
>>916744
Bump
>>916744
Interested anon bumping
>>919455
Thanks
At the very least, the war in Persia may have lasted longer. Assuming everything goes the same up to the battle of Guagamela (which it wouldn't have, but let's do it for the sake of simplicity), if Alexander DID win against the more competent Atarxerxes, he may still have chosen to leave Atarxerxes alive just as he left Darius alive. In such a case, I think it's less likely Atarxerxes would have been treacherously murdered as Darius was. Which meant a longer war.
However, assuming Atarxerxes listens to his generals unlike Darius and employs a Fabian Strategy (before Fabius, lel), Alexander would be in Persia for a long time, and he might not even defeat the Persians in the long run.
Sure, Alexander's advantages of tactical genius, good officers, well-trained troops, and superior formation/equipment would remain. So it could have still been anyone's ballgame. That being said, the advantages Alexander had would wane over time in a war of attrition, as his already small numbers dwindled and his troops' morale was tested, whereas the well-supplied and numerous Persians could afford to take attrition and jerk Alexander around in the uncertain territory of Southwest Asia.
If we go back even further to, say, Issus, and assume the result changed, we can speculate whether Alexander would've been able to put up a fight in Persia proper at all.
>>916744
>you will never live in a world where an independent Egypt reasserted its power and became a great kingdom once again under its native rulers up into the middle ages
He would have gotten blown the fuck out just like Darius. The only reason the Persians were able to field such a large army at Arbela is because so many of them fled the field at Issus.
Aterxerxes would likely have not fled as Darius did, and would either have been cut down in Alexander's cavalry charge, or forced to capitulate and make terms, as Poros did. The Macedonians would have suffered higher casualties at Issus, but then there would have been no Guagamela.
>>916744
This is an odd post.
I appreciate your providing information on the subject, but anyone who doesn't know more than you about the subject already isn't going to be able to give a more informed answer than you.
I get that alt history is just a game of speculation, but thisaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiihhnnnn
>>920428
Egypt's army was shit.
>>920491
>He would have gotten blown the fuck out just like Darius.
Extremely doubtful, since you are making the comparison as parity between Darius III and Atarxerxes III, the latter was actually a very experienced and skilled general who knew how to counter Greek armies; particularly against the use of Hoplites.
>>922018
>the latter was actually a very experienced and skilled general who knew how to counter Greek armies; particularly against the use of Hoplites.
Because Alexander won due to masterful use of hoplites
Didn't Persia field pretty good cavalry?
>>922036
I see you failed to understand my point, oh well.
>>922048
Yes, Persian and Scythian cavalry were always the most dangerous elements against the Greeks and Macedonians. I think the Athenian army that got repulsed and annihilated in Egypt after being routed from their siege at Memphis learned that the hard way.
>>920419
A quality post. have a (you)
