Alexander lives three more years?

A scenario which has been done before, but I think could be fun to explore.

Let's say that Alexander never falls ill in the summer of 323BC, and his projected Arabian campaign goes ahead as planned, beginning in the autumn of that year, shortly after the birth of his son by Rhoxane. The campaign is a hard-fought one, and Alexander suffers a couple of small defeats, but in the end, the Arabian coastal kingdoms are compelled to submit by the end of 321BC. Alexander spends the first few months of 320BC in Egypt, but falls ill on the way back from another visit to the oasis-shrine at Siwah. He dies near Jerusalem, attempting to return to Babylon.

Elsewhere in the Empire, Antipater's recall to Babylon precipitated the beginning of a Greek revolt, the OTL Lamian war. Historically, the Lamian war initially went quite well for the Greeks before returning Macedonians crushed them in 322, but with no Macedonian return and Antipater absent, they are able to do very well here. The still powerful Athenian fleet is able to handily beat a Macedonian one sent from Cilicia, and an uneasy stalemate continues to exist. The Athenians and Aetolians are frantically recruiting mercenaries at the time of Alexander's death.

Cappadocia and Armenia remain unsubdued under their Persian satraps, and tensions are building in Iran too. Attempted revolts have been crushed in the Greek settler-fortresses of Bactria.

Finally, let's say that Perdiccas remains Alexander's second-in-command, and has retained power in Babylon in Alexander's absence. Young Alexander IV is a boy of nearly three at his father's death, and has a sister, Olympias. Rhoxane is heavily pregnant, and gives birth to a second son, named Herakles, a few weeks after Alexander's death. Ptolemy is Satrap of Egypt, with Seleucus having been promoted to commander of the Companion Cavalry.

So, how do things play out from here?
 
Elsewhere in the Empire, Antipater's recall to Babylon precipitated the beginning of a Greek revolt, the OTL Lamian war.

I'm assuming this happens before Alexander's death? In that case, then I find the Athenians joining the revolt doubtful. It was really Alexander's death that springboarded them into action. Without it, you'd be hard pressed to get them to revolt until his his death 3 years later.

Actually, having them revolt 3 years later than they actually did may be enough in and of itself to put the Athenians in the best position they could ever be to win the war.
 
A scenario which has been done before, but I think could be fun to explore.

Let's say that Alexander never falls ill in the summer of 323BC, and his projected Arabian campaign goes ahead as planned, beginning in the autumn of that year, shortly after the birth of his son by Rhoxane. The campaign is a hard-fought one, and Alexander suffers a couple of small defeats, but in the end, the Arabian coastal kingdoms are compelled to submit by the end of 321BC. Alexander spends the first few months of 320BC in Egypt, but falls ill on the way back from another visit to the oasis-shrine at Siwah. He dies near Jerusalem, attempting to return to Babylon.

Elsewhere in the Empire, Antipater's recall to Babylon precipitated the beginning of a Greek revolt, the OTL Lamian war. Historically, the Lamian war initially went quite well for the Greeks before returning Macedonians crushed them in 322, but with no Macedonian return and Antipater absent, they are able to do very well here. The still powerful Athenian fleet is able to handily beat a Macedonian one sent from Cilicia, and an uneasy stalemate continues to exist. The Athenians and Aetolians are frantically recruiting mercenaries at the time of Alexander's death.

Cappadocia and Armenia remain unsubdued under their Persian satraps, and tensions are building in Iran too. Attempted revolts have been crushed in the Greek settler-fortresses of Bactria.

Finally, let's say that Perdiccas remains Alexander's second-in-command, and has retained power in Babylon in Alexander's absence. Young Alexander IV is a boy of nearly three at his father's death, and has a sister, Olympias. Rhoxane is heavily pregnant, and gives birth to a second son, named Herakles, a few weeks after Alexander's death. Ptolemy is Satrap of Egypt, with Seleucus having been promoted to commander of the Companion Cavalry.

So, how do things play out from here?


I think who if Alexander will not die as OTL, Rhoxane's son will never be is heir (Alexander's Queen was likely Stateira of Persia, the daughter of Darius III and after her was her cousin Parysatis of Persia, daughter of Artaxerses III and only after them was Rhoxane and surely the children of both Stateira and Parysatis will be before Rhoxane's in the order of succession)
 
A scenario which has been done before, but I think could be fun to explore.

Let's say that Alexander never falls ill in the summer of 323BC, and his projected Arabian campaign goes ahead as planned, beginning in the autumn of that year, shortly after the birth of his son by Rhoxane. The campaign is a hard-fought one, and Alexander suffers a couple of small defeats, but in the end, the Arabian coastal kingdoms are compelled to submit by the end of 321BC. Alexander spends the first few months of 320BC in Egypt, but falls ill on the way back from another visit to the oasis-shrine at Siwah. He dies near Jerusalem, attempting to return to Babylon.

Elsewhere in the Empire, Antipater's recall to Babylon precipitated the beginning of a Greek revolt, the OTL Lamian war. Historically, the Lamian war initially went quite well for the Greeks before returning Macedonians crushed them in 322, but with no Macedonian return and Antipater absent, they are able to do very well here. The still powerful Athenian fleet is able to handily beat a Macedonian one sent from Cilicia, and an uneasy stalemate continues to exist. The Athenians and Aetolians are frantically recruiting mercenaries at the time of Alexander's death.

Cappadocia and Armenia remain unsubdued under their Persian satraps, and tensions are building in Iran too. Attempted revolts have been crushed in the Greek settler-fortresses of Bactria.

Finally, let's say that Perdiccas remains Alexander's second-in-command, and has retained power in Babylon in Alexander's absence. Young Alexander IV is a boy of nearly three at his father's death, and has a sister, Olympias. Rhoxane is heavily pregnant, and gives birth to a second son, named Herakles, a few weeks after Alexander's death. Ptolemy is Satrap of Egypt, with Seleucus having been promoted to commander of the Companion Cavalry.

So, how do things play out from here?

First of all, Antipater's recall did not trigger the Greek revolt. Alexander the Great's death did. If he wasn't dead, the city-states would never have the courage to revolt, considering what Alexander did to Thebes. Second, if the Greek revolt still happens, then U can bet that Alexander would send troops to put down the revolt. Why would the city-states be allowed to continue to revolt, especially if Alexander was still alive. Not to mention at the time of Alexander's death, Craterus was leading 11,000 veterans back to Macedon. Those, combined with soldiers raised in Macedon and hired mercenaries, would be more then enough to smash the Greeks.

Third, I'm not sure if Cappadocia and Armenia would remain unsubdued. At the very least, Cappadocia should be conquered to help round out the Empire in Asia minor. I agree with Bactria, considering it was one of the farthest provinces, it would be the most likely to revolt.

Fourth, I'm not sure about Perdiccas remaining in Babylon. If he's Alexander's second in command, then he would accompany the army on it's Arabian campaign.Fifth, Roxane was rumored to be Alexander's least favorite consort, especially after she gave birth to a son that died within a few days back in India, so I doubt she would be "blessed" with more children after Alexander IV. Not to mention the fact that Alexander wanted to combine the Macedonians and Persians, not Macedon and Bactria, so His other two wives would no doubt have produced children in that period as well, and if either Stateira or Parysatis had a son, then as the higher ranking boy, he would be the heir. And with Stateira and Parysatis' still formidable family behind them, whichever produced a son is much more likely to win the upcoming mini- succession war. After all, the Persians are more likely to support a half-Persian and the Macedonians a fully royal, son, over a half-barbarian non-royal one.

I think who if Alexander will not die as OTL, Rhoxane's son will never be is heir (Alexander's Queen was likely Stateira of Persia, the daughter of Darius III and after her was her cousin Parysatis of Persia, daughter of Artaxerses III and only after them was Rhoxane and surely the children of both Stateira and Parysatis will be before Rhoxane's in the order of succession)

Seconded. The only way Roxana's son would ever be King is if both Stateira and Parysatis fail to produce a male heir. However, since there were believable rumors that Stateira was pregnant at Alexander's death, the chance is even slimmer.
 
Top