Alexander the great dies during the Battle of the Granicus

Say Cleitus the Black is unable to intervene and Alexander the great is killed during the Battle of the Granicus

What would happen to his army

Who would be his heir

What would happen to the Achaemenid empire
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Well, that's the end of the Persian expedition right there. The succession is a complete mess, since Alexander killed Amyntas exactly because he could theoretically be a competitor. Amyntas had been married to Alexander's eldest half-sister Kynane, who is as such available for marriage to cement the claim of any would-be claimant. Alexander's full sister, and arguably with a better claim (having the backing of Olympias, no doubt) was Kleopatra-- also widowed, also available as a bride for any would-be claimant. Alexander's half-brother Philipos Arrhidaios was not considered a threat bt Alexander (even though his claim was at least as strong as that of Amyntas), and it's assumed he was epileptic to an extent that rendered him unable to be a credible threat. (It is sometimes assumed he was a half-wit, too, but this is pure conjecture.)

In any event, the army abandons the campaign and returns across the Hellespont. This may be a good moment for Ptolemaios to reveal (or "reveal") that those stories about him being an illegitimate son of Philippos II are true (or "true"), and put forward his claim. He was popular, gifted, and while the would be rivals, he had always been loyal to Alexander-- which he could use to his advantage, claiming that Alexander knew of his true parentage, but had accepted him as a brother etc. etc.

One suspects that if Ptolemaios makes a strong case and wants to marry Kleopatra, that would go through and bolster his claim. (Don't worry about the fact that he's -- at least supposedly -- her half-brother; that never bothered the Greeks, who only considered it incest if people are full siblings. Macedonians certainly never cared about any of this; Kleopatra's first husband was her uncle.)

Anyway, we may expect there to be several nominal claimants. Depending on how successful they all are, there might be short struggle followed by a clear winner (my money, if you hadn't guessed, is on Ptolemaios), or there might be a long civil war. There's the possibility of the "old guard" of Philippos II (so Antipatros, Parmenion, Krateiros, Kleitos etc.) attempts to side-track Alexander's young Companions, in which they would draw their sons and other relatives into their own camp. It's also possible these older generals fall out with each other, unable to decide which of them is their candidate-- leading to more senseless bloodshed. If they do unite as one faction with their own 'candidate', I suspect Antipatros would be their claimant. It is also possible that a faction props up Arrhidaios as a puppet king. The old guard is most likely to try that, in which case they'd form a cabal with a lot of legitimacy bwhind their claim.

I could see, just for instance, Ptolemaios marrying Kleopatra and having the backing of most of Alexander's tight-knit group of Companions, as well as Olympias. Against them would be the cabal of the Old Guard, propping up Arrhidaios, who is married off to Kynane with the uderstanding that this union won't be expected to produce children, and that Kynane's daughter (by Amyntas) will at some future point be married to an appropriate heir-- meaning a son from one of the cabal members... probably Kassandros, son of Antipatros. Well. ENJOY YOUR CIVIL WAR. Greece will no doubt exploit this to try and regain independence. Depending on how messy and how dragged-out the Macedonian Civil War gets, the poleis may just succeed. In which case you may expect Demosthenes to lead the impromptu conga line at the resulting party in Athens.

In the meantime, the Akhaimenid Empire would bounce back from its recent troubles. Keep in mind, Alexander invaded in the wake of a civil war / succession struggle, and really got to exploit the mess that the empire hadn't yet recovered from. Had he been ten years later, it would have been a different story. Had he been anyone else, the same goes. The myth of Persian decadence and weakness is total bullshit, and Alexander was both uniquely talented and happened to strike at a highly convenient time (highly inconvenient for Persia, that is). So you may expect the Akhaimenids to thrive, and the resounding defeat of the invasion would even be a major boon to the dynasty's credibility and esteem.
 
Well, that's the end of the Persian expedition right there. The succession is a complete mess, since Alexander killed Amyntas exactly because he could theoretically be a competitor. Amyntas had been married to Alexander's eldest half-sister Kynane, who is as such available for marriage to cement the claim of any would-be claimant. Alexander's full sister, and arguably with a better claim (having the backing of Olympias, no doubt) was Kleopatra-- also widowed, also available as a bride for any would-be claimant. Alexander's half-brother Philipos Arrhidaios was not considered a threat bt Alexander (even though his claim was at least as strong as that of Amyntas), and it's assumed he was epileptic to an extent that rendered him unable to be a credible threat. (It is sometimes assumed he was a half-wit, too, but this is pure conjecture.)

In any event, the army abandons the campaign and returns across the Hellespont. This may be a good moment for Ptolemaios to reveal (or "reveal") that those stories about him being an illegitimate son of Philippos II are true (or "true"), and put forward his claim. He was popular, gifted, and while the would be rivals, he had always been loyal to Alexander-- which he could use to his advantage, claiming that Alexander knew of his true parentage, but had accepted him as a brother etc. etc.

One suspects that if Ptolemaios makes a strong case and wants to marry Kleopatra, that would go through and bolster his claim. (Don't worry about the fact that he's -- at least supposedly -- her half-brother; that never bothered the Greeks, who only considered it incest if people are full siblings. Macedonians certainly never cared about any of this; Kleopatra's first husband was her uncle.)

Anyway, we may expect there to be several nominal claimants. Depending on how successful they all are, there might be short struggle followed by a clear winner (my money, if you hadn't guessed, is on Ptolemaios), or there might be a long civil war. There's the possibility of the "old guard" of Philippos II (so Antipatros, Parmenion, Krateiros, Kleitos etc.) attempts to side-track Alexander's young Companions, in which they would draw their sons and other relatives into their own camp. It's also possible these older generals fall out with each other, unable to decide which of them is their candidate-- leading to more senseless bloodshed. If they do unite as one faction with their own 'candidate', I suspect Antipatros would be their claimant. It is also possible that a faction props up Arrhidaios as a puppet king. The old guard is most likely to try that, in which case they'd form a cabal with a lot of legitimacy bwhind their claim.

I could see, just for instance, Ptolemaios marrying Kleopatra and having the backing of most of Alexander's tight-knit group of Companions, as well as Olympias. Against them would be the cabal of the Old Guard, propping up Arrhidaios, who is married off to Kynane with the uderstanding that this union won't be expected to produce children, and that Kynane's daughter (by Amyntas) will at some future point be married to an appropriate heir-- meaning a son from one of the cabal members... probably Kassandros, son of Antipatros. Well. ENJOY YOUR CIVIL WAR. Greece will no doubt exploit this to try and regain independence. Depending on how messy and how dragged-out the Macedonian Civil War gets, the poleis may just succeed. In which case you may expect Demosthenes to lead the impromptu conga line at the resulting party in Athens.

In the meantime, the Akhaimenid Empire would bounce back from its recent troubles. Keep in mind, Alexander invaded in the wake of a civil war / succession struggle, and really got to exploit the mess that the empire hadn't yet recovered from. Had he been ten years later, it would have been a different story. Had he been anyone else, the same goes. The myth of Persian decadence and weakness is total bullshit, and Alexander was both uniquely talented and happened to strike at a highly convenient time (highly inconvenient for Persia, that is). So you may expect the Akhaimenids to thrive, and the resounding defeat of the invasion would even be a major boon to the dynasty's credibility and esteem.

What about Philip III? Wouldn’t a faction attempt to put him on the throne?
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
A strong Achaemenid empire may conquer East and West. India would be Indo-Parthian or something like that while Greece would be Perso-Greek and eventually Romans arrive.
 
Ptolemy is really much too minor a figure at this point, and ITTL the people closest to Alexander personally are most certainly not in a prestige position. It's going to be the big daddy generals of Philip who work out the succession, Antipater, Parmenion etc. Probably we get Arrhidaeus under a regent, but without the lustre of Alexander's legacy of OTL, that system will likely break down an awful lot sooner than OTL.
 
A strong Achaemenid empire may conquer East and West. India would be Indo-Parthian or something like that while Greece would be Perso-Greek and eventually Romans arrive.
Would it? I sometimes wonder myself if Alexander's conquests had stopped simply at Anatolia. Would the Achaemenids have been overthrown by an eastern people?
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Oh, sorry, I skipped the part where you mentioned him, my bad.

Ha, don't sweat it, sometimes I misread things in such a ludicrous manner that you wouldn't believe it if i told you! ;)


Ptolemy is really much too minor a figure at this point, and ITTL the people closest to Alexander personally are most certainly not in a prestige position. It's going to be the big daddy generals of Philip who work out the succession, Antipater, Parmenion etc. Probably we get Arrhidaeus under a regent, but without the lustre of Alexander's legacy of OTL, that system will likely break down an awful lot sooner than OTL.

I really think you underestimate the talent and the ambition of Alexander's circle of Companions. These weren't just some kids who got lucky because they followed the great Alexander around. Part of Alexander's greatness was in his talent to consistently select highly capable subordinates. There was also a pre-existing tension between the old guard and these younger men. If the old guard wins, many of them will get side-lined. They won't take that lying down.


A strong Achaemenid empire may conquer East and West. India would be Indo-Parthian or something like that while Greece would be Perso-Greek and eventually Romans arrive.

Would it? I sometimes wonder myself if Alexander's conquests had stopped simply at Anatolia. Would the Achaemenids have been overthrown by an eastern people?

Achaemenids were very strong then.

Persia could (and probably would) be very strong if given a few years to recover, instead of being invaded by a milirary genius and his crack troops at a very inconvenient moment. Resisting outside conquest should be fairly easy. Conquering further territory, however, seems unlikely-- not to mention counterproductive.

One of the reasons Alexander was so successful is that he managed to get dissatisfied statraps on his side. That was possible because the burden on those satraps (as well as the direct oversight, due to political paranoia) had increased during the recent political turbulence in the Empire. Attempts to start major wars of conquest would seriously put the Empire at risk from internal problems and uprisings. There is absolutely no need for any of that.

The best strategy for Persia is to watch Macedon descend into civil war, and fund the Greek poleis in their struggle for independence. After that: back to the age-old strategy of supporting these Greeks over here against those Greeks over there, and sit back with a grin as they kill each other.

In the east, the Nanda Empire either survives and thrives, or a coup still gets orchestrated that brings Chandragupta to power. This depends on whether you believe that Chandragupta exploited temporary chaos caused in part by Alexander's sudden appearance, or whether Chanakya deliberately worked to destabilise the political situation to bring his pupil Chandragupta into power (in which case this would likely have happened even if Alexander hadn't been there). Ether way, you see a strong polity in India, and it would not benefit the Akhaimenids to pursue war there. Trade is far more profitable.
 
I really think you underestimate the talent and the ambition of Alexander's circle of Companions. These weren't just some kids who got lucky because they followed the great Alexander around. Part of Alexander's greatness was in his talent to consistently select highly capable subordinates. There was also a pre-existing tension between the old guard and these younger men. If the old guard wins, many of them will get side-lined. They won't take that lying down.

I fear you're anachronistically boosting them above the political level they're at in this period - particularly if Alexander dies almost at the first point of contact with the Persians. This isn't a judgement on their abilities, it's just political reality that they're nowhere near as significant a force politically as Philip's generals. Ptolemy in particular wasn't even a somatophylax until 330 - he's not going to be an immediate contender for power. I'm sure there will be substantial unrest in Macedonia in the years ahead - but it's unlikely that political power is going to immediately fall into the hands of any of the OTL diadochi.
 
Top