Perhaps, but it's important to remember that Antipater had no reason to obey such summons. In Macedon, he was in a position of strength, and further, it was necessary for there to be a smooth transition of command between him and Craterus, since there was a great deal of discontent in Greece after the Exile Decrees were read at Olympia. Even after Alexander summoned Antipater, he still tarried in Macedon, sending Cassander to plead his case. Alexander didn't trust Antipater anymore (thanks in no small part to Olympias) and wanted to lure him to Babylon as swiftly as possible.
However, I see your point and will respectfully agree to disagree with you here.
Same at you. It's a tricky situation that Alexander - who has been away from Macedon and administration in general too long (too long in the sense Antipater's position is going to be hard to pry him loose from) would need to approach carefully to get the desired results.
Assuming he lives, obviously. OTL it was rendered moot.
Remember, the epigoni had been taken from many high ranking Persian families and trained under the auspices of Alexander after his victory over Darius III. Alexander, for whatever his faults, had a great deal more legitimacy in Persia as Great King than Seleucus ever did. Even that aside, by this point, Alexander truly believed himself to be divine and the rightful successor of Darius, so in his mind at least, he believed that he could trust the epigoni. Now, I agree with you that there are plenty of arguments against the loyalty of these Persian troops in comparison to the Macedonians, and many of the Diadochi probably saw this. But Alexander wasn't thinking that way, for better or for worse.
Yeah. I think it is something that bears consideration in the context of "Alexander's next campaigns" - they could either become as or more devoted to him as his Macedonians, or they could use it against him. It's a situation that will be tested, that's for sure.
Agreed. Personally, while I'm a bit of Hellenophile, I've always had an equal fascination with Achaemenid Persia as well. This is why I've always been drawn to a surviving Argead Empire, myself, because of the possibilities of a very different Hellenistic period. The idea of a truly syncretic culture (though, admittedly, with some obvious dominance on the part of the Greeks) always interested me. Sort of a more Orientalised Seleucid Empire--but larger and more successful due to its reserves of men and money.
Yeah. Something like this is an intriguing mixture, but "MOAR HELLENISM" as Socrates mentioned . . . let's just say that I boycott that when polite.
So it should be interesting to see where you go with your timeline. Even if all goes right, Alexander's empire is going to be in for some very interesting times when he dies, if only because its unclear whether his son will be able to fill those shoes.
But if it wasn't interesting, it wouldn't be worth writing about.
This is mostly true, although we'd probably also see Arab gods take on more Greek attributes, the use of Koine Greek as a lingua franca and the ruling elite of Arabia adopt some minor Hellenic trappings as well.
Eeyup. What I meant was, it probably won't go much beyond that - borrowing some customs and some words and maybe even Koine Greek as a lingua franca as you just said, but it won't turn Arabia into Hellas Minor.
The Ubbergeek: I disagree, and I don't think this is really the thread to go into why.
Sufficient to say, it being anti-democratic is not something I think (as someone whose friends are almost to a man fully pro-democracy) makes a good counterargument in regards to monarchy being worse.