Alexander the great lived longer questions.

Skallagrim

Banned
Tyre wasn't anything like the danger to the Eastern Greeks that Carthage was to the Western ones. Alexander is likely to make sure it doesn't revive in is old form.

The smart move would be to give all the cities in the region, formerly beholden to Carthage, the status of free cities within a larger satrapy. That way, none of them would be prticularly inclined to restore Carthage to supreme power. A similar union of free cities along the eastern Iberian coastline, stretching out to include Massalia, could be organised as well (that one would already be ethnically mixed, including both Carthaginian and Hellenic cities).

Oh, and make sure you directly control the Pillars of Herakles. That's always a good spot to be in charge of.
 
The smart move would be to give all the cities in the region, formerly beholden to Carthage, the status of free cities within a larger satrapy. That way, none of them would be prticularly inclined to restore Carthage to supreme power. A similar union of free cities along the eastern Iberian coastline, stretching out to include Massalia, could be organised as well (that one would already be ethnically mixed, including both Carthaginian and Hellenic cities).

Oh, and make sure you directly control the Pillars of Herakles. That's always a good spot to be in charge of.

I'm not sure how much the Phoenicians of Iberia were beholden to Carthage in Alexander's time. The rule was exceptionally light and more hegemonic in any case. Carthage's dominance would always be a good bit lighter than any presumptive Macedonian regime I think - although the Macedonians tended to be pretty good at accommodating local elites and making arrangements with local cities.
 
This is pretty much was Toynbee once fancifully imagined. It's not happening. Really. It's not.


Yet the opposite assertion, raised by some here, that Alexander was somehow doomed to see his empire crack apart... that's equally misguided. The notion that any big empire will fall apart as soon as it can is just complete nonsense. Empires bring benefits, too. Wars of succession are often the big danger. Not satraps rising up for shits and giggles. And on that note: Alexander was widely seen as a liberator, who left the local aristocrats free to run their own affairs. They had little reason to rebel. In fact, the satraps he removed and punished in OTL had been abusing their position to fleece and oppress the population, which was what Alexander did not want.

Considering his interest in decent infrastructure, his empire had a good chance to keep together for quite some time, if he'd only lived long enough to hand it over to an adult heir. It would be decentralised, but that in itself would given local aristocrats less reason to rebel.

Indeed, it's no less unlikely that Cyrus' Empire survived when he basically created the world's largest (by that time) state and incorporated multiple kingdoms and regions that had never been subject to larger authorities, yet the majority of those conquests were still under the control of Darius III at the end of the Empire. You've probably noticed I've never argued for the idea that the Argead Empire must cease to exist as soon as Alexander's dead, instead simply exploring their likely solutions to the problem of government and what issues are likely to come up in the long term.

A particular problem to these alt history scenarios is precisely that issue that's just been raised, Alexander himself being viewed as too specifically important one way or another. It is true that what he would do with those extra years, to secure his dynasty, to raise and chose his successors, to defend his territories in the long term, would have an impact on the Argead Empire's ultimate arc. But as I said before, Empires can expand, contract, expand again on multiple occasions, and not every founder of an imperial state leaves it in ideal condition afterwards. What I consider inevitable is, in a word, history; personalities and plans and accidents and desires will happen. The history of the Seleucid Empire is not defined by its establishment by Seleucus then its inevitable contraction due to the Will of History, nor that of the Achaemenids by its establishment by Cyrus followed by a series of sensuous caretakers. Individual rulers will also bring particular talents to the table, form plans, achieve new visions of their domains, and find success with the lands with which they've been endowed.

Weirdly enough I'm also arguing the same perspectives with opposite rationales; Empires are not nice. They can be beneficial to more people than their prior situation, prosperous, and safe. But interacting with an Empire is not nice, what they must do to survive is not nice, what they require to sustain themselves is not nice. That idea of a benevolent all-star union of the entire classical world under Alexander's vision is a fantasy that has lasted through the centuries, millenia even, but it fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the beast. This sort of idea is what a lot of people are refuting by saying Alexander's Empire would inevitably have crumbled immediately, because it's so clearly fantastical and easy to reject. What you and I, and others, are arguing for is an actual state that could have been formed by his dynasty.


Why should Carthage be a stretch?

Agathocles of Syracuse invaded Africa not long after Alexander's death, and got all the way to the City before being turned back. Even after his failure he got a peace of Status Quo Ante. If a pipsqueak state like Syracuse could manage that, Alexander can surely do more with his vastly greater resources. In particular, in the Sicilian War Carthage could be resupplied by sea, something which Alexander's fleet can surely prevent.

Calling Syracuse a pipsqueak makes sense in comparison to the Achaemenid Empire, say, but outside of massive imperial states Syracuse was probably the most powerful of any Greek poleis across much of the Classical era, in this era once again ruling over most of the Hellenic-ruled parts of the island. Arguing for greater resources equalling automatic victory is bizarre when we have actual history to indicate that this relationship is not so obvious; the Achaemenids were entirely capable of being resisted by, and defeated by, a coalition of Greek powers at sea, none of which at the time had a powerful maritime Empire, and were eventually defeated on land and driven entirely out of their new conquests. Yes, that land victory came after Xerxes and the majority of his forces had returned homeland, that's not cheating, that's strategy, and this is always going to be a factor in campaigns by big Empires against regions on their periphery. This coalition represented a minority of Greeks, and by no means all of the major military Hellenic poleis at the time either, some of which were aligned with Persia, some had already been overcome (Euboia never seems to have recovered from the Persians), and some declined to participate. Ancient states with massive resources can still ultimately lose campaigns to those of a smaller scale. I'm certainly not arguing that Carthage was impossible to overcome by Alexander but there is no inevitability in his overcoming it either, particularly for a state with no infrastructural links to the rest of his domains and which demands time and attention at great distance from important parts of the Empire. The Argead Empire cannot, in my opinion, be a Mediterranean and massive Near Eastern Empire at the same time.
 

Pellaeon

Banned
This is pretty much was Toynbee once fancifully imagined. It's not happening. Really. It's not.


Yet the opposite assertion, raised by some here, that Alexander was somehow doomed to see his empire crack apart... that's equally misguided. The notion that any big empire will fall apart as soon as it can is just complete nonsense. Empires bring benefits, too. Wars of succession are often the big danger. Not satraps rising up for shits and giggles. And on that note: Alexander was widely seen as a liberator, who left the local aristocrats free to run their own affairs. They had little reason to rebel. In fact, the satraps he removed and punished in OTL had been abusing their position to fleece and oppress the population, which was what Alexander did not want.

Considering his interest in decent infrastructure, his empire had a good chance to keep together for quite some time, if he'd only lived long enough to hand it over to an adult heir. It would be decentralised, but that in itself would given local aristocrats less reason to rebel.
But I just want to believe though that Toynbee could have been right and that humanity could have taken a qualitative leap under the glorious Argead empire.
 
Calling Syracuse a pipsqueak makes sense in comparison to the Achaemenid Empire, say, but outside of massive imperial states Syracuse was probably the most powerful of any Greek poleis across much of the Classical era, in this era once again ruling over most of the Hellenic-ruled parts of the island.

Which rather goes to prove my point. If Syracuse was strong enough to get to the gates of Carthage unaided, how much more so when it is (most probably) just one contingent in Alexander's army. It was certainly a pipsqueak compared to his Empire.

I'm certainly not arguing that Carthage was impossible to overcome by Alexander but there is no inevitability in his overcoming it either, particularly for a state with no infrastructural links to the rest of his domains and which demands time and attention at great distance from important parts of the Empire. The Argead Empire cannot, in my opinion, be a Mediterranean and massive Near Eastern Empire at the same time.

But with control of the Mediterranean (he was planning an enormous fleet) he would always be in touch with his Empire. It's not like when he was out of contact in India and the Makran, and various satraps were ready to try their luck in the hope that he'd never come back.

Given the naval superiority which he would have, Carthage is a lot nearer to Macedon (and Egypt) than Babylon is, so the logistics aren't too bad. Nor does he necessarily have to stay there. Once his army is at its gates, and his navy cutting it off from support by sea, the rest of the war (if it doesn't surrender) will just be one long siege, which he could leave to one of his generals if he needed to go back east. But I doubt if he'd have to. So long as he was known to be alive, his prestige alone would most likely cause potential rebels to keep their heads down.
 
It sounds daft, but looking back again at capitals, Alexandria is a great location for a Mediterranean leaning Argead Empire, but in a best case, we have Arabia, and parts of India (and a war there to boot).

However, if there is a war with India, I expect something near OTL Muscat would be prime for it, or at least effectively ruling from there. Close to Persia, who could benefit from more attention if Alexandria is the capital typically - and close to India, a perfect location for Alexander as it is quite a distance from C's ports on the Ganges, but very close to the Indus.

At the very least, I think an Alexandria Over The Straits (for lack of a better name, or a local one), might be an important city - alongside one at the Gulf of Aden.

In fact the "Royal Waterway of 6 Cities" (Alexandria, Aden, Muscat, Karachi, Syracuse/Carthage, Tingis) might be some of the most important cities to keep control of. As they'd be critical for large-scale transportation of men and materials by sea. They'd also likely have to be settled by Loyalists/Greeks, and governed by men of absurdly loyal character, and lavishly spent on.

EDIT : If the Black/Euxine Sea becomes more important, I can see this becoming 7 with the inclusion of Chalcedon, or a refounded Byzantion.
 
Which rather goes to prove my point. If Syracuse was strong enough to get to the gates of Carthage unaided, how much more so when it is (most probably) just one contingent in Alexander's army. It was certainly a pipsqueak compared to his Empire.



But with control of the Mediterranean (he was planning an enormous fleet) he would always be in touch with his Empire. It's not like when he was out of contact in India and the Makran, and various satraps were ready to try their luck in the hope that he'd never come back.

Given the naval superiority which he would have, Carthage is a lot nearer to Macedon (and Egypt) than Babylon is, so the logistics aren't too bad. Nor does he necessarily have to stay there. Once his army is at its gates, and his navy cutting it off from support by sea, the rest of the war (if it doesn't surrender) will just be one long siege, which he could leave to one of his generals if he needed to go back east. But I doubt if he'd have to. So long as he was known to be alive, his prestige alone would most likely cause potential rebels to keep their heads down.

I will just point out the reason Agathocles was invading Africa in the first place, which was that Carthage was handily winning the war on Sicily and it was a desperation move to force Carthage armies to return home and defend their homelands. It was possible precisely because it's major forces were overseas, not because Syracuse could casually attack Africa whenever it felt like it.

But again my issue is not that the task is impossible, my issue is that it's neither inevitable nor easy to keep within the folds of the Empire. The Empire is never likely to be threatened by satrapal rebellion but it is very easy to passively lose control over individual satrapies. The Achaemenids and Seleucids both suffered these kind of creeping losses and neither of them stretched from Carthage to Taxila. This is what I mean by saying the Argeads cannot be a Mediterranean and a Near Eastern Empire at the same time, Alexander may very well conquer all of these places but I don't consider it possible in this period to govern all of these places for more than a generation. Successions and the dynastic squabbles are exactly the opportunity for the outer parts of Empire to break away and we've already talked about how this is going to strike the Argeads sooner or later. Major campaigns to recover lands on the extremities will take the King and his main army away for a year or more, now imagine having to bounce between Central Asia and Carthage every time the Empire looks vulnerable. Yes Carthage is not that far from Macedon but the centre of an Argead Empire is going to be in Mesopotamia or nearby, Sicily is already going to be pretty far out there in terms of the Empire's reach.

I feel either you're overestimating the kind of distances needed for something to be remote in this period or underestimating the challenges of government across so great a span.
 
II feel either you're overestimating the kind of distances needed for something to be remote in this period or underestimating the challenges of government across so great a span.


Agreed it probably won't be possible to maintain a centralised state indefinitely over such a big area. But as already discussed this doesn't stop the conquest making a major cultural difference. Tyre got rebuilt eventually, and Sidon was never sacked at all, but they didn't just pick up where they left off. Both were much more Hellenised. The same may be true for Carthage, or alternatively it may find itself part of a Numidian Kingdom. Either way it won't be the old Carthage.

Also, if the Empire west of Greece is mainly a maritime one, could there be a Macedonian province made up of Sicily, Corsica-Sardinia, and the Balearics? That would be enough to ensure the Empire a powerful presence in the Western Mediterranean without increasing its commitments unduly.

Incidentally, any thoughts on what happens when the Gauls start to move? If Alexander's Kingdom of Greece-Persia-Egypt is strong enough to see them off, where do they go instead? Maybe through Spain and Italy into North Africa? Could get interesting.
 
Last edited:
Incidentally, any thoughts on what happens when the Gauls start to move? If Alexander's Kingdom of Greece-Persia-Egypt is strong enough to see them off, where do they go instead? Maybe through Spain and Italy into North Africa? Could get interesting.

Good question. If the empire is still strong to repel them,I assume the Gauls will go to Italy or Spain. Long shot scenario would be to go Scythia-central Asia.
 
It is a good question, I've had a couple of different timelines affect the Celtic migrations and it's a thorny one. On the one hand these movements can be attracted towards fertile lands, even ones not necessarily inhabited or home to anyone important, but a lot of these migrations were motivated by prestige and plunder, and in that instance more powerful states and Empire's attract far more attention. These rich and settled states can work their way into the politics of peoples nearby, think of the symbiotic relationship between Germanic people's and the Roman Empire, where the prospect of Roman trade and plunder enabled more powerful chiefs and confederations , but also attracted Germanic people's into imperial service and helped them buy into Roman ideology. Anything associated with Argead riches is going to be a huge draw to Celts and other people's as a result, I think. I have a hunch that even if beaten off the Celts aren't simply going to leave. Even if Brennos horde decide to go elsewhere others will be back. What more could fame hungry young men want than the world's largest empire and overwhelming odds to overcome. Sounds like someone we've been talking about...
 
I do worry about any European Scenario. Pushing too far into Europe and you add a whole mess of complexities. One, is how you organise the Empire.

If you go with Satrapies and Royal Cities (say with my Royal Waterways approach), one of those cities has to house the 'first responders' i.e. the guy with just enough authority to raise an army in the Western Med. Ditto in India, and Central Asia, whilst the King is in the centre of it all. Are they going to be able to pull a Zopyrion and go and invade other places on their own? If they are able to defend pretty happily, then great. If they are able to invade other territories, there is a risk of strongmen. Do that with Brennos and bring the Gauls to heel? Suddenly you have a "Strongman"
 
I do worry about any European Scenario. Pushing too far into Europe and you add a whole mess of complexities. One, is how you organise the Empire.

If you go with Satrapies and Royal Cities (say with my Royal Waterways approach), one of those cities has to house the 'first responders' i.e. the guy with just enough authority to raise an army in the Western Med. Ditto in India, and Central Asia, whilst the King is in the centre of it all. Are they going to be able to pull a Zopyrion and go and invade other places on their own? If they are able to defend pretty happily, then great. If they are able to invade other territories, there is a risk of strongmen. Do that with Brennos and bring the Gauls to heel? Suddenly you have a "Strongman"

That's exactly the mechanism by which many Hellenistic kingdoms and satraps broke away, using a victory over barbarians as an independence declaration, for what it's worth.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
That's exactly the mechanism by which many Hellenistic kingdoms and satraps broke away, using a victory over barbarians as an independence declaration, for what it's worth.

The man who defends you from the barbarians is basically the man you'll follow-- thus, he is the king.

The solution, or part of it, mat lie in the concept of imperial cities, raised earlier. If you ensure that major cities are independent from the hinterland, and directly administrated, this puts you in charge of the wealthy/stratigic/important centres of the region (namely those cities). If such cities are also home to a sizable contingent of imperial troops, anyone trying to wrest away control of those cities will have a hard time doing so. Also those troops provide protection to the people, thus being both visible proof of imperial benefits... and also visible proof of imperial power.
 
Wild thought. If he founds more "Alexandrias" round the Western Med, might a significant proportion of the settlers be from Egypt? If so we could end up with some weird mixtures of Greek, Italia, Egyptian, Celtic and maybe Phoenician. Wonder what might emerge from that.
 
Top