An alternative history of the origins of the Buddha, seems highly probable. I'll have to get a hold of the book sometime.
It's an interesting theory. Never heard of it before. But if Buddha was a Babylonian Emperor, then why wasn't his real story told? Why the official myth?
I've always found it suspect that if the Buddha story were true, why the founder of it didn't write anything down. You'd think that if someone wanted to start a religion or a movement to awaken others and the world, that he'd write down a treatise or book. And if Buddha came from a royal family and was supposed to become a king, he would have been educated in the palace, so there's no excuse why he couldn't have written anything down. That never made any sense.
On the other hand, every major religion has to have a founder. A religion with no founder, or one that was totally made up, would not last long and would not change the lives of millions. Religions that last for thousands of years must have some real power or significance for it to endure so long and affect so many lives. So it's also improbable that Buddha was made up and never existed.
This theory perhaps provides an explanation for both of these mysteries.