Alexander dies at Multan

This is an interesting scenario that I'm surprised isn't brought up more often - Alexander dying earlier is occasionally brought up, but it's always on the Granicus or even just prior to Issus rather than here. I've thought a little bit about making one of those short "timeline in a day" things on it but ultimately I'm far too easily stagnated with writing. Usually I have a rule not to pose what ifs to the forum on timelines I consider making, but now I'm going to break that rule. So here I am with a lot of ideas and an interest in discussing the scenario, and maybe I'll end up writing something after all.

Anyways, background on the scenario: it's 325 BC, and Alexander is fighting the Mallians after he was forced to return west after the army mutinied. He attacks the Mallian capital of Multan, and, recklessly, he gets himself shot by an arrow while jumping out to the forefront of the battle. The wound most likely pierced Alexander's lung. This was the closest Alexander got to death before he actually did die IOTL, and it's pretty clear that the wound significantly weakened him from there on after (Alexander is never again mentioned as walking or riding any long distance, instead taking a chariot or boat, and planned to ride with the fleet for the Arabian campaign).

The change I will make is simple: that arrow instead goes through Alexander's throat instead of piercing his lung, killing him instantly. No time to name a successor, no time for anything.

The thing I think is interesting about this scenario is that Hephaestion is alive and obviously in the "second-in-command" role (although he had yet to be named chiliarch), but hasn't been declared Alexander's successor. This differentiates the scenario substantially from the Granicus death POD because Philip's old guard besides Antipater guarding Macedonia has been weeded out by this point, and is substantially different from OTL because it adds Hephaestion to the first gen of the Diadochi and has the army stranded in hostile territory rather than in friendly-ish confines in Babylon, adding a certain Xenophon's Anabasis-esque feel to it. The other thing is that it would have been far too hard for the generals to maintain the image of Alexander being alive to the soldiers and to their enemies, so things will start unravelling very quickly.

Now, at this point, there are a couple important things to keep in mind with regards to the immediate succession. First, is that Arrhidaeus is with the army and there is no pregnant Roxane, meaning that Arrhidaeus should be acclaimed the next king pretty quickly. Heracles, Alexander's rumored bastard, had been born but there's no reason why he would be supported over Arrhidaeus, the main reason he was brought up as a possibility in real life was because Nearchus had been married into that family at the Susa Weddings, which haven't happened yet (and Nearchus had been sent out anyways IIRC). Second, is that a large part of the army and it's high command would not immediately be present: Ptolemy, Craterus, and Hephaestion were each sent out beforehand on various missions with large contingents.

Alexander on his return from India and this injury and then Gedrosia faced a lot of immediate challenges to his authority throughout his empire. Robin Lane Fox listed of some of the revolts/suspect personalities Alexander dealt with during the post-Indian campaign period IOTL, and I'll summarize that list:

- Greek mercenaries in Bactria rise up and name an Athenian their king
- Mercenaries in India murder the satrap Philip
- Tribes in the Hindu Kush rebel (quelled by Oxyartes, Roxane's father)
- Helmand Valley overrun by Iranians after Macedonian satrap dies unexpectedly
- Orxines, a member of one of the lesser Achaemenid branches, becomes the satrap in Persia after the old satrap dies without Alexander's approval.
- Susa held by two Iranian men who were once loyal to Darius and considered to be opportunists
- Armenia and Cappadocia not pacified (Alexander never subjugated either region IOTL)
- The Phrygians rebelled and probably killed their satrap
- The Thracians had yet to be truly pacified

In addition to this list, we can add two very powerful entities that might be inclined to take advantage of the opportunity Alexander dying provides, one which did "rebel" against Alexander IOTL, the other which may very well have had things went differently. These two men are Cleomenes of Naucratis and Harpalus. Harpalus, a boyhood friend of Alexander's that was lame and so was of no use militarily, had been made the royal treasurer in Babylon. He had control of at the very least the majority of the empire's wealth, and IOTL, he was not afraid to use it to his own advantage. He ended up spending a great deal of money trying to make Athenian prostitutes love him. Vainly he started wanting people to pay him and his lover the homage of proskynesis, which is obviously a direct assault at Alexander himself, implying that he was a god/king figure himself. Most likely he assumed that Alexander would die in India and he would never have to pay for this, but of course in real life Alexander returned and Harpalus fled in a ridiculous effort that ended up seeing Harpalus backstabbed by his own mercenaries and his stolen loot financing in part the Athenian rebellion against Antipater and a mercenary venture into Cyrene. Cleomenes, meanwhile, was technically just a nomarch but in practice the satrap of Egypt, being the designated middleman in tax collection from the rest of the nomarchs in Egypt to Alexander (as Egypt had no satrap), and also being the man primarily responsible for building Alexandria. Alexander considered removing him IOTL for his incredibly brutal methods to get gold, but gave him a pass after Hephaestion died, in exchange for him building a monument to Hephaestion IIRC.

Then there's also Athens, which I would imagine would be very eager to revolt against the Macedonians once they learn that Alexander is dead. However, the timing might not be as good as it was IOTL - they don't have the extra gold from Harpalus nor the influx of mercenaries looking for work (since Alexander hadn't forced the satraps to disband their armies yet).

So, clearly, there are a lot of obstacles for Alexander's generals to overcome to even return home, let alone maintain order and stability throughout Alexander's massive dominions.


That all said, here are the main questions I'm looking for, plus more thoughts in hopefully starting to answer them:

- What is the nature of Arrhidaeus' regency? Arrhidaeus will likely get acclaimed by the army as king immediately with little pushback from the generals, but how do the generals decide to govern the kingdom? Is Hephaestion accepted as Arrhidaeus' sole regent, being the obvious second-in-command to Alexander and seen by many as his spiritual heir (especially by Hephaestion himself)? Or do the generals come to some kind of pact between themselves agreeing to rule collaboratively? My hunch is that, since Hephaestion hasn't been made chiliarch, isn't present, and had a lot of enemies within Alexander's inner circle, he won't be allowed to become Arrhidaeus' sole regent, and the rest of the generals will agree to some kind of ruling council with Hephaestion as a sort of pariah entity.
- Darius III's brother, Oxyathres, was alive and with the army at Multan - what do the Macedonians do with him, and does he have any chance at staking his own claim at the Persian throne?
- How does the army and it's generals feel with regards to keeping the empire in tact? Do they purely just want to get the hell out of India and return home? Do they want to preserve Alexander's empire to the best of their abilities? Or somewhere in-between? They would return west, but under what purpose? And how easily could they transition into mercenaries in a more chaotic world?
- When the army returns west, does it do so the way Alexander did IOTL? Which is to say that the majority of it goes through Gedrosia while the veterans pacify the easier Helmand Valley. If it doesn't go through Gedrosia, how does the army get back?
- How good of a chance does Athens really have at overthrowing the Macedonians at this point? Am I right in thinking the Athenians would be in a worse position? Or are their odds about the same or even better than OTL's Lamian War?
- Can the Persians rally under a new king with enough time for them to effectively fight the Macedonians? And who would that king by? Oxyathres? Orxines? Or do you think that the Persians would remain loyal? (seems unlikely to me but is a possibility)
- There's also Antipater and Antigonus. Both were loyal to Alexander IOTL, but with the army a world away, and them being powerful, capable, ambitious men, do either of them go so far as to consider themselves independent actors from whatever Arrhidaeus' regime looks like? Do they work together in putting down Athens and the Anatolian -tribes? How much do they (or can they) assist the army returning from India?
- What roles do Harpalus and Cleomenes of Naucratis play? I can see both declaring themselves kings, and certainly both have enough money to support armies to protect those claims. How far can they go?


So I guess from here I'll turn it over to you guys: what are your thoughts on my questions and my analysis of the situation? I hope that I didn't kill discussion in the crib by sharing so much of my thoughts on the topic. :eek: Just I've been thinking about this scenario on and off for a while and have plenty of ideas that I've been itching to share but have restrained myself from doing so due to a lack of finished product. :eek: Would anyone be interested in a timeline on this?
 
Ariddheus couldn't possibly be proclaimed. The army is deep inside hostile country and will have to choose a real king.

Hephaestion, Seleucus and Perdiccas would all be credible options. The jockeying for position could get interesting.
 
This is an interesting scenario that I'm surprised isn't brought up more often - Alexander dying earlier is occasionally brought up, but it's always on the Granicus or even just prior to Issus rather than here. I've thought a little bit about making one of those short "timeline in a day" things on it but ultimately I'm far too easily stagnated with writing. Usually I have a rule not to pose what ifs to the forum on timelines I consider making, but now I'm going to break that rule. So here I am with a lot of ideas and an interest in discussing the scenario, and maybe I'll end up writing something after all.

Anyways, background on the scenario: it's 325 BC, and Alexander is fighting the Mallians after he was forced to return west after the army mutinied. He attacks the Mallian capital of Multan, and, recklessly, he gets himself shot by an arrow while jumping out to the forefront of the battle. The wound most likely pierced Alexander's lung. This was the closest Alexander got to death before he actually did die IOTL, and it's pretty clear that the wound significantly weakened him from there on after (Alexander is never again mentioned as walking or riding any long distance, instead taking a chariot or boat, and planned to ride with the fleet for the Arabian campaign).

The change I will make is simple: that arrow instead goes through Alexander's throat instead of piercing his lung, killing him instantly. No time to name a successor, no time for anything.

The thing I think is interesting about this scenario is that Hephaestion is alive and obviously in the "second-in-command" role (although he had yet to be named chiliarch), but hasn't been declared Alexander's successor. This differentiates the scenario substantially from the Granicus death POD because Philip's old guard besides Antipater guarding Macedonia has been weeded out by this point, and is substantially different from OTL because it adds Hephaestion to the first gen of the Diadochi and has the army stranded in hostile territory rather than in friendly-ish confines in Babylon, adding a certain Xenophon's Anabasis-esque feel to it. The other thing is that it would have been far too hard for the generals to maintain the image of Alexander being alive to the soldiers and to their enemies, so things will start unravelling very quickly.

Now, at this point, there are a couple important things to keep in mind with regards to the immediate succession. First, is that Arrhidaeus is with the army and there is no pregnant Roxane, meaning that Arrhidaeus should be acclaimed the next king pretty quickly. Heracles, Alexander's rumored bastard, had been born but there's no reason why he would be supported over Arrhidaeus, the main reason he was brought up as a possibility in real life was because Nearchus had been married into that family at the Susa Weddings, which haven't happened yet (and Nearchus had been sent out anyways IIRC). Second, is that a large part of the army and it's high command would not immediately be present: Ptolemy, Craterus, and Hephaestion were each sent out beforehand on various missions with large contingents.

Alexander on his return from India and this injury and then Gedrosia faced a lot of immediate challenges to his authority throughout his empire. Robin Lane Fox listed of some of the revolts/suspect personalities Alexander dealt with during the post-Indian campaign period IOTL, and I'll summarize that list:

- Greek mercenaries in Bactria rise up and name an Athenian their king
- Mercenaries in India murder the satrap Philip
- Tribes in the Hindu Kush rebel (quelled by Oxyartes, Roxane's father)
- Helmand Valley overrun by Iranians after Macedonian satrap dies unexpectedly
- Orxines, a member of one of the lesser Achaemenid branches, becomes the satrap in Persia after the old satrap dies without Alexander's approval.
- Susa held by two Iranian men who were once loyal to Darius and considered to be opportunists
- Armenia and Cappadocia not pacified (Alexander never subjugated either region IOTL)
- The Phrygians rebelled and probably killed their satrap
- The Thracians had yet to be truly pacified

In addition to this list, we can add two very powerful entities that might be inclined to take advantage of the opportunity Alexander dying provides, one which did "rebel" against Alexander IOTL, the other which may very well have had things went differently. These two men are Cleomenes of Naucratis and Harpalus. Harpalus, a boyhood friend of Alexander's that was lame and so was of no use militarily, had been made the royal treasurer in Babylon. He had control of at the very least the majority of the empire's wealth, and IOTL, he was not afraid to use it to his own advantage. He ended up spending a great deal of money trying to make Athenian prostitutes love him. Vainly he started wanting people to pay him and his lover the homage of proskynesis, which is obviously a direct assault at Alexander himself, implying that he was a god/king figure himself. Most likely he assumed that Alexander would die in India and he would never have to pay for this, but of course in real life Alexander returned and Harpalus fled in a ridiculous effort that ended up seeing Harpalus backstabbed by his own mercenaries and his stolen loot financing in part the Athenian rebellion against Antipater and a mercenary venture into Cyrene. Cleomenes, meanwhile, was technically just a nomarch but in practice the satrap of Egypt, being the designated middleman in tax collection from the rest of the nomarchs in Egypt to Alexander (as Egypt had no satrap), and also being the man primarily responsible for building Alexandria. Alexander considered removing him IOTL for his incredibly brutal methods to get gold, but gave him a pass after Hephaestion died, in exchange for him building a monument to Hephaestion IIRC.

Then there's also Athens, which I would imagine would be very eager to revolt against the Macedonians once they learn that Alexander is dead. However, the timing might not be as good as it was IOTL - they don't have the extra gold from Harpalus nor the influx of mercenaries looking for work (since Alexander hadn't forced the satraps to disband their armies yet).

So, clearly, there are a lot of obstacles for Alexander's generals to overcome to even return home, let alone maintain order and stability throughout Alexander's massive dominions.


That all said, here are the main questions I'm looking for, plus more thoughts in hopefully starting to answer them:

- What is the nature of Arrhidaeus' regency? Arrhidaeus will likely get acclaimed by the army as king immediately with little pushback from the generals, but how do the generals decide to govern the kingdom? Is Hephaestion accepted as Arrhidaeus' sole regent, being the obvious second-in-command to Alexander and seen by many as his spiritual heir (especially by Hephaestion himself)? Or do the generals come to some kind of pact between themselves agreeing to rule collaboratively? My hunch is that, since Hephaestion hasn't been made chiliarch, isn't present, and had a lot of enemies within Alexander's inner circle, he won't be allowed to become Arrhidaeus' sole regent, and the rest of the generals will agree to some kind of ruling council with Hephaestion as a sort of pariah entity.
- Darius III's brother, Oxyathres, was alive and with the army at Multan - what do the Macedonians do with him, and does he have any chance at staking his own claim at the Persian throne?
- How does the army and it's generals feel with regards to keeping the empire in tact? Do they purely just want to get the hell out of India and return home? Do they want to preserve Alexander's empire to the best of their abilities? Or somewhere in-between? They would return west, but under what purpose? And how easily could they transition into mercenaries in a more chaotic world?
- When the army returns west, does it do so the way Alexander did IOTL? Which is to say that the majority of it goes through Gedrosia while the veterans pacify the easier Helmand Valley. If it doesn't go through Gedrosia, how does the army get back?
- How good of a chance does Athens really have at overthrowing the Macedonians at this point? Am I right in thinking the Athenians would be in a worse position? Or are their odds about the same or even better than OTL's Lamian War?
- Can the Persians rally under a new king with enough time for them to effectively fight the Macedonians? And who would that king by? Oxyathres? Orxines? Or do you think that the Persians would remain loyal? (seems unlikely to me but is a possibility)
- There's also Antipater and Antigonus. Both were loyal to Alexander IOTL, but with the army a world away, and them being powerful, capable, ambitious men, do either of them go so far as to consider themselves independent actors from whatever Arrhidaeus' regime looks like? Do they work together in putting down Athens and the Anatolian -tribes? How much do they (or can they) assist the army returning from India?
- What roles do Harpalus and Cleomenes of Naucratis play? I can see both declaring themselves kings, and certainly both have enough money to support armies to protect those claims. How far can they go?


So I guess from here I'll turn it over to you guys: what are your thoughts on my questions and my analysis of the situation? I hope that I didn't kill discussion in the crib by sharing so much of my thoughts on the topic. :eek: Just I've been thinking about this scenario on and off for a while and have plenty of ideas that I've been itching to share but have restrained myself from doing so due to a lack of finished product. :eek: Would anyone be interested in a timeline on this?

Quick thoughts

- Greek mercenaries in Bactria rise up and name an Athenian their king

So? Bactria is wortless desert

- Mercenaries in India murder the satrap Philip

So? The army wanted to return home in any event?

- Tribes in the Hindu Kush rebel (quelled by Oxyartes, Roxane's father)

So? See above?

- Helmand Valley overrun by Iranians after Macedonian satrap dies unexpectedly

So? See above

- Orxines, a member of one of the lesser Achaemenid branches, becomes the satrap in Persia after the old satrap dies without Alexander's approval.

His life is measured by however gets to Persia first - Antigonus or the army

- Susa held by two Iranian men who were once loyal to Darius and considered to be opportunists

See above.

- Armenia and Cappadocia not pacified (Alexander never subjugated either region IOTL)

Never pacified and never really contributed. Withdraw the few garrisons to settle morte important matters in Persia and Macedonia.

- The Phrygians rebelled and probably killed their satrap

To be dealt with later - not really #1 problem

- The Thracians had yet to be truly pacified

They never were (by anyone)!

- What is the nature of Arrhidaeus' regency? Arrhidaeus will likely get acclaimed by the army as king immediately with little pushback from the generals, but how do the generals decide to govern the kingdom? Is Hephaestion accepted as Arrhidaeus' sole regent, being the obvious second-in-command to Alexander and seen by many as his spiritual heir (especially by Hephaestion himself)? Or do the generals come to some kind of pact between themselves agreeing to rule collaboratively? My hunch is that, since Hephaestion hasn't been made chiliarch, isn't present, and had a lot of enemies within Alexander's inner circle, he won't be allowed to become Arrhidaeus' sole regent, and the rest of the generals will agree to some kind of ruling council with Hephaestion as a sort of pariah entity.

I think you attach far too much importance to dynastic succession in Macedonian politics. It is not absolutely clear that Arrhidaeus was with the army and even if he was the dangerous journey back to Babylon presented plenty of opportunities for his status to be revoked - permanently.

- Darius III's brother, Oxyathres, was alive and with the army at Multan - what do the Macedonians do with him, and does he have any chance at staking his own claim at the Persian throne?

None whatsoever

- How does the army and it's generals feel with regards to keeping the empire in tact? Do they purely just want to get the hell out of India and return home? Do they want to preserve Alexander's empire to the best of their abilities? Or somewhere in-between? They would return west, but under what purpose? And how easily could they transition into mercenaries in a more chaotic world?

They want out of the East asap and back to "civilization" (or at least back to Babylon). Mercenaries implies someone else would employ them - the army would return to Babylon in one (smaller) piece. Afterwards is anyones guess

- When the army returns west, does it do so the way Alexander did IOTL? Which is to say that the majority of it goes through Gedrosia while the veterans pacify the easier Helmand Valley. If it doesn't go through Gedrosia, how does the army get back?

The important ones will go by boat - Nearchus' fleet was around and whoever gets back to Babylon first stands a good chance of being "the Strongest"


- How good of a chance does Athens really have at overthrowing the Macedonians at this point? Am I right in thinking the Athenians would be in a worse position? Or are their odds about the same or even better than OTL's Lamian War?

None. Antipater and Craterus will crush them.

- Can the Persians rally under a new king with enough time for them to effectively fight the Macedonians? And who would that king by? Oxyathres? Orxines? Or do you think that the Persians would remain loyal? (seems unlikely to me but is a possibility)

No

- There's also Antipater and Antigonus. Both were loyal to Alexander IOTL, but with the army a world away, and them being powerful, capable, ambitious men, do either of them go so far as to consider themselves independent actors from whatever Arrhidaeus' regime looks like? Do they work together in putting down Athens and the Anatolian -tribes? How much do they (or can they) assist the army returning from India?

Antipater would probably stay in Macedonia - Antigonus will amke a bee-line for Babylon to secure the treasuries.

- What roles do Harpalus and Cleomenes of Naucratis play? I can see both declaring themselves kings, and certainly both have enough money to support armies to protect those claims. How far can they go?

They may have money but they have no influence with the army and there are no other forces available to them to defend their purses



My take on it would be that Antigonus is in the prine position to rule Macedonia in Asia. The return of the army to Babylon will be a critical moment which could pan out many different ways but assuming Antigonus is in control of the Persia heartlands and the army is as depleted as OTL I think he has the strongest position. Antipater may lead an indepedent Macedonia in Europe and Egypt may or may not go its own way.


There will be succession wars - still.
 
Ariddheus couldn't possibly be proclaimed. The army is deep inside hostile country and will have to choose a real king.

Hephaestion, Seleucus and Perdiccas would all be credible options. The jockeying for position could get interesting.

On the other hand, all of them would be squabbling with each other and unable to decide who should be king between them. Claiming Arrhidaeus as the new king solves that problem: He's literally nothing more than a figurehead, so it allows all of them to essentially still be controlling everything while they can put the thorny issue of succession and splitting the pie aside until they reach safe territory such as Babylon.
 
Thanks for the responses. :)

Ariddheus couldn't possibly be proclaimed. The army is deep inside hostile country and will have to choose a real king.

Hephaestion, Seleucus and Perdiccas would all be credible options. The jockeying for position could get interesting.

I think you attach far too much importance to dynastic succession in Macedonian politics. It is not absolutely clear that Arrhidaeus was with the army and even if he was the dangerous journey back to Babylon presented plenty of opportunities for his status to be revoked - permanently.

Hmm... the impression I've always got is that the Macedonians - especially the folks that made up the foot - were very traditional and very pro-Argead. When Macedonia was under attack from Illyrians, they made Amyntas IV, a child, their king, with Philip II (as a capable Argead male) as his regent - so they were willing to accept an incapable king as long as someone capable was ruling for that king, which would be the case I describe. There weren't any serious alternative non-Argead kings proposed IOTL when Alexander died - only Arrhidaeus and what was at the time a potential son, both of whom were the only Argead males left. Arrhidaeus doesn't have to rule, but I don't see how, as the last surviving Argead male, he doesn't get his chance to reign.

Also I can't really see there being a reason for whoever's really in charge to off Arrhidaeus in the return to Babylon. It wouldn't make any sense. Why kill the one guy everyone in the army can rally around, especially when he doesn't have the capacity to fight any of your decisions. Eventually you can get sick of "just" being the power behind the throne, but I can't see it happening so early on.

That said I was wrong to automatically make the assumption that Arrhidaeus was present with the army in India, because it isn't made explicit (I don't see why Alexander would have left Arrhidaeus in Babylon or somewhere else either, but regardless, it is true we don't know).

Derek Pullem said:
me said:
- Greek mercenaries in Bactria rise up and name an Athenian their king

So? Bactria is wortless desert

Well IOTL they became their own independent force trying to return home and ended up having to be put down by Perdiccas. Here they are theoretically a free agent army for whoever's willing to pay them and get them back to Greece. And that's fairly harsh for Bactria, which was after all the land of a thousand cities during it's height under Greek rule.

All the sos?

The overall point I was trying to make with that list was that things were very unstable even with Alexander alive - with him confirmed dead, things are bound to be more chaotic, likely meaning more friction for the returning army and more opportunities for potential Macedonian enemies to exploit.

me said:
- Orxines, a member of one of the lesser Achaemenid branches, becomes the satrap in Persia after the old satrap dies without Alexander's approval.

His life is measured by however gets to Persia first - Antigonus or the army

me said:
- Susa held by two Iranian men who were once loyal to Darius and considered to be opportunists

See above.

Hmm... I did not consider Antigonus getting to Persia before the army. It seems unlikely to me, because I'd assume either events in Greece or in Anatolia would keep him busy, but it is a possibility that I ignored.

me said:
- Armenia and Cappadocia not pacified (Alexander never subjugated either region IOTL)

Never pacified and never really contributed. Withdraw the few garrisons to settle morte important matters in Persia and Macedonia.

True.

me said:
- The Phrygians rebelled and probably killed their satrap

To be dealt with later - not really #1 problem

Well, the Phrygians are within Antigonus' domain... but you are correct that they aren't the biggest problem.

me said:
- The Thracians had yet to be truly pacified

They never were (by anyone)!

True.

me said:
- Darius III's brother, Oxyathres, was alive and with the army at Multan - what do the Macedonians do with him, and does he have any chance at staking his own claim at the Persian throne?

None whatsoever

Can't see there being much of a chance for him either, but he is an interesting courtier and figured I'd pose the question for the hell of it.

me said:
- How does the army and it's generals feel with regards to keeping the empire in tact? Do they purely just want to get the hell out of India and return home? Do they want to preserve Alexander's empire to the best of their abilities? Or somewhere in-between? They would return west, but under what purpose? And how easily could they transition into mercenaries in a more chaotic world?

They want out of the East asap and back to "civilization" (or at least back to Babylon). Mercenaries implies someone else would employ them - the army would return to Babylon in one (smaller) piece. Afterwards is anyones guess

If they're going pronto to Babylon like you're suggesting, are they ignoring solving the various problems that I listed earlier? Because the empire east of the Tigris isn't going to survive if the Macedonians completely ignore events in Iran, it's not going to be fixed by them simply marching through it again.

I guess the way I see it is that they go as quick as they can back largely abandoning the Indian conquests and so on, but try and enforce rule over Persia, if only to prevent another Persian dynasty from arising and wiping them out. But if the army gets bogged down there, other potential trouble-spots grow stronger. It's a tricky situation, and I don't think the Macedonians are strong enough to overcome to rule all the former Persian Empire in this scenario, even with that empire divided into a few kingdoms.

me said:
- When the army returns west, does it do so the way Alexander did IOTL? Which is to say that the majority of it goes through Gedrosia while the veterans pacify the easier Helmand Valley. If it doesn't go through Gedrosia, how does the army get back?

The important ones will go by boat - Nearchus' fleet was around and whoever gets back to Babylon first stands a good chance of being "the Strongest"

An interesting idea that didn't occur to me. Still the power is more in the army than in the capital at this point, so I would assume that the one that wants to be "the strongest" would want to be in charge of the army.

me said:
- How good of a chance does Athens really have at overthrowing the Macedonians at this point? Am I right in thinking the Athenians would be in a worse position? Or are their odds about the same or even better than OTL's Lamian War?

None. Antipater and Craterus will crush them.

Well Craterus is all the way in India. Is Antipater strong enough on his own to crush yet another Greek revolt? Would he need Antigonus' help? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, just unsure. After all the Athenians had Antipater on the ropes for a while during the Lamian War until Antipater received help from Leonnatus.

me said:
- Can the Persians rally under a new king with enough time for them to effectively fight the Macedonians? And who would that king by? Oxyathres? Orxines? Or do you think that the Persians would remain loyal? (seems unlikely to me but is a possibility)

No

Well, the army is several months away from being able to campaign against a revived Persian state. It'd be hard to mobilize an army that could be competitive with the Macedonian one but there would be plenty of time for the Persians to rally around a rebel leader if they chose to do so. Antigonus is closer, but he also has far less resources at his hands, and a number of other potential distractions, namely Athens.

me said:
- There's also Antipater and Antigonus. Both were loyal to Alexander IOTL, but with the army a world away, and them being powerful, capable, ambitious men, do either of them go so far as to consider themselves independent actors from whatever Arrhidaeus' regime looks like? Do they work together in putting down Athens and the Anatolian -tribes? How much do they (or can they) assist the army returning from India?

Antipater would probably stay in Macedonia - Antigonus will amke a bee-line for Babylon to secure the treasuries.

This is where the question of Athens' strength is important: if they're strong enough to hold Antipater to a standstill, can Antigonus afford to go to Babylon to seize the treasuries from Harpalus? And if he can't, how does Harpalus (an incompetent yet somewhat ambitious man) capitalize?

me said:
- What roles do Harpalus and Cleomenes of Naucratis play? I can see both declaring themselves kings, and certainly both have enough money to support armies to protect those claims. How far can they go?

They may have money but they have no influence with the army and there are no other forces available to them to defend their purses

Money can buy influence. Harpalus is probably the richest man in the world at this point, and can buy enough mercenaries to defend against whatever army Antigonus has at his disposal and maintain whatever claim he wants. Cleomenes has the wealth and isolation of Egypt to his advantage. If both declare their autonomy like I suspect, they are major hurdles for the Macedonian leadership to overcome in reinstating order throughout the empire.

My take on it would be that Antigonus is in the prine position to rule Macedonia in Asia. The return of the army to Babylon will be a critical moment which could pan out many different ways but assuming Antigonus is in control of the Persia heartlands and the army is as depleted as OTL I think he has the strongest position. Antipater may lead an indepedent Macedonia in Europe and Egypt may or may not go its own way.

Hmm... that take is more positive on Antigonus' chances than I was giving him credit for. He could end up in that position, but it would take some fortune (though we do know from OTL that he was competent enough to capitalize on fortune).

There will be succession wars - still.

Well of course! That's why it's a fun question! :):cool:
 
Monopolist said:
Also I can't really see there being a reason for whoever's really in charge to off Arrhidaeus in the return to Babylon. It wouldn't make any sense. Why kill the one guy everyone in the army can rally around, especially when he doesn't have the capacity to fight any of your decisions. Eventually you can get sick of "just" being the power behind the throne, but I can't see it happening so early on.
Rather, I think its more likely that they try to vow for who becomes his regent/the man behind the throne, like they did with Alexander IV. Though its still not likely to hold together for long, since they all want that power.
 
Top