Is it likely for his son to still be killed and/or the regent loses control ?Alexander did have a son but by the time he dies the new king will be just a boy, so a regent would rule instead.
Is it likely for his son to still be killed and/or the regent loses control ?
Unlikely to have the OTL scenario as with Alexander living longer a) a lot of children would be already born by the weddings of Susa b) likely Stateira and Parysatis would have given children to Alexander so Alexander's heir would not be the son of Roxane and his mother would have a political powerbase in Persia, as heiress of the Partian Empire, supporting her and her son (while Roxane OTL missed that and was totally dependent by Alexander's generals)...Is it likely for his son to still be killed and/or the regent loses control ?
Not really. OTL his main problem was who his natural choice as regent died before him, his second choice at the time of his death was in the worst possible position aka in the middle of a journey between Persia and Macedonia and his only heir was born from the wrong mother, plus his Queen, likely pregnant with his true heir, was killed on order of one of his lieutenants and his pregnant junior wife who plotted for the power. Take away that disaster and Alexander's empire will likely survive (maybe Greece and Macedonia will go tho Philip Arrhidaeus and Adea Eurydice but the loss will stop there)Alexander had lost all momentum when he retreated from India, Italy and Carthage would have been a logistical nightmare to invade and conquer, and Alexander was already facing severe unrest from his troops. Had he lived 5 or 10 years longer, the wars of the Diadochi would have still happened, his empire was far too large and his lieutenants far too powerful, perhaps their outcome might change, but the empire will end up fractioned regardless.
Not really. OTL his main problem was who his natural choice as regent died before him, his second choice at the time of his death was in the worst possible position aka in the middle of a journey between Persia and Macedonia and his only heir was born from the wrong mother, plus his Queen, likely pregnant with his true heir, was killed on order of one of his lieutenants and his pregnant junior wife who plotted for the power. Take away that disaster and Alexander's empire will likely survive (maybe Greece and Macedonia will go tho Philip Arrhidaeus and Adea Eurydice but the loss will stop there)
Alexander signet ring was not destined to Perdiccas as Alexander's last word about the regency can be interpreted either as "to the strongest" (the traditional version) or "to Krateros" so in both cases Perdiccas has taken the signet ring not recevied it for himself from Alexander, plus Alexander's son was not yet born at the time of his death (one of the reason for which Arrhidaeus was named king by the macedonian army together with the eventual son of Roxane)His regent was Perdiccas, who received Alexander’s signet ring on his deathbed, in Babylonia. Alexander’s immediate problem at his death was that his son was too young to fend for himself, his brother was mentally incapable, and the most effective and trustworthy of his lieutenants, Eumenes, was a Greek, who never truly managed to inspire loyalty to his troops, while all the others opposed the regency to hold their own portion of the empire. And when things could still have been salvaged after Perdiccas’ death, Antipater ruined everything by bypassing his son and giving the regency to Polyperchon.
I believe much of the fate of Alexander’s empire if he gets to live longer depends on the character of his heir, provided he’s old enough to rule, nevertheless, Egypt, Greece and Bactria would be inevitably lost within a century if not less.
Alexander signet ring was not destined to Perdiccas as Alexander's last word about the regency can be interpreted either as "to the strongest" (the traditional version) or "to Krateros" so in both cases Perdiccas has taken the signet ring not recevied it for himself from Alexander, plus Alexander's son was not yet born at the time of his death (one of the reason for which Arrhidaeus was named king by the macedonian army together with the eventual son of Roxane)
First, no he wouldn't actually need an especially strong navy, except in transport, once he gets a major army into Sicily. From there, it actually only takes about a day for a large fleet to sail from Sicily to Carthage, and galley based navies are not able to exercise continuous command of the sea, as their logistical demands limit how long they can stay away from their home ports in strength. Second, in the roughest possible figures, Alexander is sitting on perhaps seven times the wealth of Carthage [Achaemenid empire annual tribute estimated at something like 14,000 talents per year vs 2000 for Carthage] and all the shipbuilding resources of Phoenicia, Egypt, and Asia Minor, not to mention Greek fleets. Powerful fleets are definitely within his means regardless.Carthage is rich but unless Alexander spends a fortune on a navy, he will have to take the long way around through North Africa. The Balkans are an unknown. I guess if he wanted he could find the mines of Dacia centuries early but that might be ASB since we know they're there but he has no clue they're there. He can only conquer stuff he knows about, and this thread has a time limit on his lifespan anyway.
I would even reverse it and say that at the time of Alexander's death OTL, Carthage is the one starting from a position of naval disadvantage. The Diadochi Wars featured plenty of large fleet battles and they rapidly developed larger ships which outpaced Carthage's shipbuilding industry.First, no he wouldn't actually need an especially strong navy, except in transport, once he gets a major army into Sicily. From there, it actually only takes about a day for a large fleet to sail from Sicily to Carthage, and galley based navies are not able to exercise continuous command of the sea, as their logistical demands limit how long they can stay away from their home ports in strength. Second, in the roughest possible figures, Alexander is sitting on perhaps seven times the wealth of Carthage [Achaemenid empire annual tribute estimated at something like 14,000 talents per year vs 2000 for Carthage] and all the shipbuilding resources of Phoenicia, Egypt, and Asia Minor, not to mention Greek fleets. Powerful fleets are definitely within his means regardless.
First, no he wouldn't actually need an especially strong navy, except in transport, once he gets a major army into Sicily. From there, it actually only takes about a day for a large fleet to sail from Sicily to Carthage, and galley based navies are not able to exercise continuous command of the sea, as their logistical demands limit how long they can stay away from their home ports in strength. Second, in the roughest possible figures, Alexander is sitting on perhaps seven times the wealth of Carthage [Achaemenid empire annual tribute estimated at something like 14,000 talents per year vs 2000 for Carthage] and all the shipbuilding resources of Phoenicia, Egypt, and Asia Minor, not to mention Greek fleets. Powerful fleets are definitely within his means regardless.