Alexander the Great lives to 65+

I don't have my copy of this: http://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Great-Failure-Macedonian-Hambledon/dp/082644394X at my fingertips, but I'd consider his satraps having no idea what to do when a satrap unexpectedly dies and someone being killed by him on his return for taking that position to be a sign that his rule is anything but working fine.

If you´re referring to the satrap of Persia being executed after Alexander´s excursion through the desert, the situation was a bit more complicated than that. He was not executed because he had taken over the satrapy (in fact Alexander was pretty well-disposed to him when he met him at Pasargadae; the satrap was smart enough to bring plenty of gifts). However, the local Persian population had another story, as the guy had taken the oppurtunity to plunder the (remaining?) riches at Persepolis´ temples and royal graves and had ´unlawfully killed many Persians´. And that was the reason he was hanged.

There were more satraps that had been replaced for one reason or the other during Alexander´s trip through India, but certainly not all their replacements faced the noose.

The purges around 327-6BC (which were in scope actually smaller than those that had occured in the three years before the the invasion of India) were not only limited to the Iranian notables: several Macedonian, Thracian and mercenary commanders were also removed for various causes (rebellion, plunder, gross mistreatment of the local population).

And lastly, after these interventions of Alexander in the rule of the satraps in the eastern part of the empire, order was restored and the satraps were generally well-regarded (e.g. the replacement satrap of Persia was a Macedonian, Peucestas, who adaped to the Persian dress, language and other custums). Macedonian rule in the eastern part of the Alexander's empire would remain quite stable for decades to come, showing Alexander's organizational reforms were quite succesful.
 
I'm not sure he could survive to such an age without taking out one or two of his sons in the process.

The Macedonian elite would hold on to their Persian wives, siring a culturally and ethnically mixed nobility, to serve under a likely also mixed higher court circle composed of Alexander's own kin and those of his sisters.
 
It seems logical to make a second attempt to invade India with fresh troops, because the prize would be greater?

But conquering Arabia, and perhaps the horn of Africa would really bind the empire together, linking the Nile to the Indus by searoute.

Then bringing Magna Greacia in, would lead to war with Carthage and Rome. Would it be possible to march from Egypt to Carthage and then choose the path of Hannibal over the alps? Perhaps more likely to fight the Romans like Pyrrhus did, but with the tactics of Hannibal. The alternative would be to follow the Danube, invading Italy from the east.

A problem might be the celts and germans, because frontiers would be much longer and there might not be resources to return to India while supressing the Romans and Carthaginians. Imagine those two as allies.

Eh, I don't think that's really feasible.


Moving to Carthage by land though was a very real possibility for Alexander-IIRC, he was planning on building a large road network on that land route, akin to the one that would exist in Roman times but wasn't in place--making it much more connected and much more feasible.
 
Eh, I don't think that's really feasible.


Moving to Carthage by land though was a very real possibility for Alexander-IIRC, he was planning on building a large road network on that land route, akin to the one that would exist in Roman times but wasn't in place--making it much more connected and much more feasible.

IIRC in OTL the Arabs conquered the North Africa moving from Egypt westward on land without building any roads. I know that the Arabs were natural desert warriors as opposed to the Macedonians but the point is that it was possible.
The road might be of help though...
 
IIRC in OTL the Arabs conquered the North Africa moving from Egypt westward on land without building any roads. I know that the Arabs were natural desert warriors as opposed to the Macedonians but the point is that it was possible.
The road might be of help though...

Well yeah, but the area was much more connected and a lot more populated with more cities in Roman-post Roman times than in Alexander's time. Though I agree, it's still possible without building the road(s).
 
India IIRC was the only place he tried to absorb that hadn't been a part of the Achaemenid Empire. Administration's and bureaucracy's aren't built overnight.

I thought the parts of it that he invaded had been Persian in the time of Darius the Great.

I agree, though, both that Persia hadn't held them very long, and that Alexander would have gone beyond them had his men alkowed it.
 
Well yeah, but the area was much more connected and a lot more populated with more cities in Roman-post Roman times than in Alexander's time. Though I agree, it's still possible without building the road(s).


And di Alexander ever intend to do it by road?

Istr reading (in Lane Fox, I think) that shortly before his death he had ordered the building of 1000 triremes over on the Mediterranean coast. If true, that suggests he was planning to rely more on sea transport rather than a long overland march.

At a guess, I'd imagine him occupying Sicily as a base (no doubt the Tyrant of Syracuse would lose no time declaring himself a faithful ally) and trying to detach some of the smaller North African cities, then striking directly at Carthage much as the Romans would do in 149BC,
 
So to suggest that Alexander's empire falls apart simply because he had a militaristic bent is simplistic.

Alexander's empire falls apart because he has a militaristic bent and is too immature to focus on administration.

Again, these statements need to be placed in context. When Alexander died, he had just completed the most extensive series of conquests in history. He may not have had much time for the administration of all those territories while on campaign. But a man who cared so much about his legacy that he founded cities named after himself from the Nile to the Indus - surely there is at least a good chance he intended to leave behind a sturdy administration if for no other reason than to glorify his name even more?
No. And "not having much time" is no excuse for things like - for example - not having something in place so that when a satrap dies the other satraps know what to do or someone to appoint a replacement so it doesn't have to wait until his return.

That's not "too busy, call me later", that's "but paperwork is boring!".

And if he never did end his campaigning, remember that the WI here is that he lives to 65. Cyrus himself died on campaign rather far from home and quite horrifically. Yet his empire outlived him by two and a half centuries. Here is a man who did not know his limits. He spent his whole life trying to expand his fledgling empire, with attention paid to the administration only in the pauses between campaigns which were nearly as extensive as Alexander's. If his empire could survive his death, why is it so unlikely that Alexander's will?
Because Cyrus did pay attention to administration - setting up the satrapy system, for example - Alexander didn't (again, leaving for India without so much as appointing a viceroy to handle anything that comes up while he's out of contact).

Comparing the two is like comparing porcupines and platypuses.

The fact is, your arguments could be made against practically any ruler or government from antiquity right through the Middle Ages. Did Alexander kill his rivals? Of course. But it's hard to find leaders who didn't do worse, especially from that time period. Was he more of a general than a king? So were Cyrus, Trajan and many others. Heck, Augustus probably carried out as much expansion or more than Caesar himself, and yet with his death we had the Pax Romana. Why did these empires survive? Because monarchy's crucial strength was succession. Alexander at 65 with many children is better able to plan for succession than Alexander OTL whose only son was not yet even born.
1) Alexander killed men whether they were his rivals or not because he saw rivals everywhere.

2) More of a general than a king describes some rulers, but not all. And Augustus, for example, didn't make himself unavailable for decisions on rulership while having campaigns carried out elsewhere.

3) No, because these empires were built by men with actual long term vision, not "Man, this is boring, I'm going to conquer Arabia."

Succession alone does not help - Alexander with many children is likely to run into the problem that has bedeviled the Macedonian kingdom for the past two centuries, because there's no basis to say "This child succeeds, the others just have to suck it up." that can be relied on.

C
Again, remember he had just finished the most extensive conquests in history by one man in the ancient world. His entire life was spent campaigning to secure the whole of the Persian empire and its periphery. His attempts at consolidation were only starting to begin at his untimely death because this was the firs time he could put any focus on it. After Arabia (which, unlike his time in India, isn't cut off communications wise from the rest of his empire, so a lot of the problems in that regard from his time in India won't surface during his short time in Arabia), he could very well just stop his extension. I'm not entirely convinced he was definitely planning on going to Carthage, and regardless, it wouldn't be that hard to persuade him to not go-especially if the soldiery and his staff were as against it as they seemed when Perdiccas presented Alexander's plans before them after his death.

So why is it the first time he could put any focus on it?

Why did he choose to spend his adult life to date campaigning?

Alexander could have stopped in Asia Minor. He could have stopped in Mesopotamia. He could have stopped in the Levant. He could have stopped in Egypt.

But nooooo, Alexander wanted more. So of course he's not going to have any time when he's using every waking moment to campaign. That's the frickin' problem man.


If you´re referring to the satrap of Persia being executed after Alexander´s excursion through the desert, the situation was a bit more complicated than that. He was not executed because he had taken over the satrapy (in fact Alexander was pretty well-disposed to him when he met him at Pasargadae; the satrap was smart enough to bring plenty of gifts). However, the local Persian population had another story, as the guy had taken the oppurtunity to plunder the (remaining?) riches at Persepolis´ temples and royal graves and had ´unlawfully killed many Persians´. And that was the reason he was hanged.

Source?



Also, at the forum, found this while searching on Alexander: https://webadmin.mcgill.ca/classics/sites/mcgill.ca.classics/files/2009-10-06.pdf

Haven't finished reading it, just submitting it as "Something that may interest people".
 
Last edited:
And di Alexander ever intend to do it by road?

Istr reading (in Lane Fox, I think) that shortly before his death he had ordered the building of 1000 triremes over on the Mediterranean coast. If true, that suggests he was planning to rely more on sea transport rather than a long overland march.

At a guess, I'd imagine him occupying Sicily as a base (no doubt the Tyrant of Syracuse would lose no time declaring himself a faithful ally) and trying to detach some of the smaller North African cities, then striking directly at Carthage much as the Romans would do in 149BC,

Would they outproduce the Carthaginians on Triremes, and defeat them in a seabattle? Also the Elephants and Numidians would be a challenge if they march along the coast of Libya from Egypt. But, yeah Sicily would be a great price with the other greek colonies in the meditteranean.
 
I'm guessing Persian practice would dominate in the succession, given how the Macedonians had yet to figure out an effective system.
Most likely the eldest son by the royallest wife suceeds and polygamously weds some sisters, nieces and cousins.
 
Would they outproduce the Carthaginians on Triremes, and defeat them in a seabattle?

Quite easily, I should think, given the resources Alexander had at his disposal by this point.


Also the Elephants and Numidians would be a challenge if they march along the coast of Libya from Egypt. But, yeah Sicily would be a great price with the other greek colonies in the meditteranean.

Which side would the Numidians be on? Did they have any especial love for Carthage? Or would they just join the likely winner?
 
Quite easily, I should think, given the resources Alexander had at his disposal by this point.




Which side would the Numidians be on? Did they have any especial love for Carthage? Or would they just join the likely winner?

True enough, the Macedonians would be crazy rich after the conquest of the east, and could probably just buy Carthage. ;)
 
Which side would the Numidians be on? Did they have any especial love for Carthage? Or would they just join the likely winner?

I remember reading somewhere that the Carthaginians didn't employ war elephants until they encountered them against Pyrrhus.

Because Cyrus did pay attention to administration - setting up the satrapy system, for example - Alexander didn't (again, leaving for India without so much as appointing a viceroy to handle anything that comes up while he's out of contact).

Comparing the two is like comparing porcupines and platypuses.
You mean, the same exact satrapy system that Alexander had inherited and employed when he took over the reigns of the Persian Empire? Perhaps he assumed that the existing system, since it worked well for the Persians, would work well for his needs. Obviously his time in India proved him wrong, and the fact of the matter is, we just don't know what he was going to do to fix it, other than the changes he made (as someone else explained).

1) Alexander killed men whether they were his rivals or not because he saw rivals everywhere.
Do you have any other examples, rather than Parmenion/Philotas and Cleitus? You continue to say this, but haven't given any other examples than these two incident, one pre-meditated from the beginning of his reign, the other a drunken rage incident.

2) More of a general than a king describes some rulers, but not all. And Augustus, for example, didn't make himself unavailable for decisions on rulership while having campaigns carried out elsewhere.
Because Augustus hardly did any of the campaigning-he was just there, while Agrippa actually ran the show in every instance.

3) No, because these empires were built by men with actual long term vision, not "Man, this is boring, I'm going to conquer Arabia."
Picture for a second Augustus dying at 33. Now at 33 (30 BC), he had just finished a lifetime of constant military campaigning (led and operated by Agrippa), and showed no intention of actually thinking about a long term plan for how he was going to rule the empire. Instead, he was planning more campaigns: a possible invasion of Britain, a subjugation of the Danube provinces, an invasion of Germania, an invasion of Arabia, and he may have even been contemplating an attack on the Parthian Empire. In fact, for the next 7 years, he shows no inclination to moving towards a durable way of managing the state, other than constantly being consul each year. It was no coincidence that it was after he recovered from a near mortal sickness that he sprung into action to create a longterm solution, which we know as the Principate.

Now why do we have to assume Alexander had no intention of creating an efficient and effective method of governance for his empire, especially when he was already showing signs of moving in that direction at least (unlike Augustus)?
Succession alone does not help - Alexander with many children is likely to run into the problem that has bedeviled the Macedonian kingdom for the past two centuries, because there's no basis to say "This child succeeds, the others just have to suck it up." that can be relied on.
As Velasco pointed out, he would almost surely use the Persian method of succession.
So why is it the first time he could put any focus on it?

Why did he choose to spend his adult life to date campaigning?

Alexander could have stopped in Asia Minor. He could have stopped in Mesopotamia. He could have stopped in the Levant. He could have stopped in Egypt.

But nooooo, Alexander wanted more. So of course he's not going to have any time when he's using every waking moment to campaign. That's the frickin' problem man.
His goal from the start was to conquer, and in a sense, become the ruler of, the Persian Empire. That's why he didn't stop there. That's why his death at that time is so frustrating for someone trying to predict how he'd rule from then on out, because he had just finishing subjugating and conquering the whole of the Persian Empire. Now that the Persian Empire was conquered, he doesn't need to spend every moment on campaign. In fact, it may be unlikely that he would play any major role in his Arabian campaign to begin with-his doctors were almost adamant that he should not strain his body (i.e. go on difficult campaigning) given his wound from the arrow through his throat.

Or he could ignore it, and leave Antipater as regent-like I said, there's precedent for that decision, considering he did the same thing when he left Macedon.
 
....Picture for a second Augustus dying at 33. Now at 33 (30 BC), he had just finished a lifetime of constant military campaigning (led and operated by Agrippa), and showed no intention of actually thinking about a long term plan for
how he was going to rule the empire. Instead, he was planning more campaigns: a possible invasion of Britain, a subjugation of the Danube provinces, an invasion of Germania, an invasion of Arabia, and he may have even been contemplating an attack on the Parthian Empire. In fact, for the next 7 years, he shows no inclination to moving towards a durable way of managing the state, other than constantly being consul each year. It was no coincidence that it was after he recovered from a near mortal sickness that he sprung into action to create a longterm solution, which we know as the Principate. Now why do we have to assume Alexander had no intention of creating an efficient and effective method of governance for his empire, especially when he was already showing signs of moving in that direction at least (unlike Augustus)?...
Oh, that was a good one!

I'd like to add that young Augustus was worse than young Alexander, who killed his friend in hot blood in a drunken rage which was quite acceptable for the Macedonians who were heavy drinkers of alcohol. That was only once and Alexander publicly regretted that.
Young Augustus used to seduce young married women during banquet/feast while their husbands were present - he just took a wife away and in half an hour he returned the mope-headed woman with red face to her frustrated man. And that is the surest way for a ruler to get killed. Not a good idea for a man who wants to built a long living system of government.
 
You mean, the same exact satrapy system that Alexander had inherited and employed when he took over the reigns of the Persian Empire? Perhaps he assumed that the existing system, since it worked well for the Persians, would work well for his needs. Obviously his time in India proved him wrong, and the fact of the matter is, we just don't know what he was going to do to fix it, other than the changes he made (as someone else explained).

Alexander just left it in place, but he didn't do anything to deal with his (royal) responsibilities in it.

Do you have any other examples, rather than Parmenion/Philotas and Cleitus? You continue to say this, but haven't given any other examples than these two incident, one pre-meditated from the beginning of his reign, the other a drunken rage incident.
Not off the top of my head, let me find my books and get back to you. But pre-meditating the first speaks rather badly of Alexander.

Because Augustus hardly did any of the campaigning-he was just there, while Agrippa actually ran the show in every instance.
And this is a bad thing?

Now why do we have to assume Alexander had no intention of creating an efficient and effective method of governance for his empire, especially when he was already showing signs of moving in that direction at least (unlike Augustus)?
You know more about Augustus than I do, but what sign has he given of moving in that direction? What sign has he given of actually sitting down and handling the fact that one person can't be all over this newly conquered empire at once (not necessarily a problem with a fully established system, but where is he getting the new King's Eyes from? Not all of the old ones are still alive, not all of them can be trusted by a foreign ruler, etc.).

We have him frickin' planning to conquer Arabia - where is the plan to manage the state?

As Velasco pointed out, he would almost surely use the Persian method of succession.
This is not something where he can just say "By the way, we're using this system." and suddenly all but one son is unable to do anything.

Succession does not work like that. Especially succession when the great majority of the Macedonian nobles aren't going to care for the Persian ideas on how to do things and may well support another son for any of a dozen reasons - not necessarily even especially bad reasons.

His goal from the start was to conquer, and in a sense, become the ruler of, the Persian Empire. That's why he didn't stop there. That's why his death at that time is so frustrating for someone trying to predict how he'd rule from then on out, because he had just finishing subjugating and conquering the whole of the Persian Empire. Now that the Persian Empire was conquered, he doesn't need to spend every moment on campaign. In fact, it may be unlikely that he would play any major role in his Arabian campaign to begin with-his doctors were almost adamant that he should not strain his body (i.e. go on difficult campaigning) given his wound from the arrow through his throat.
So because his goal was to conquer it all, it stops being his responsibility to handle the issues of administration all along?

He never needed to spend every moment on campaign except to fulfill a self-imposed goal. And there's the problem - Alexander has chosen to act a certain way for most of his adult life (and all his time on the throne). Which is more likely, him continuing to act that way, or him suddenly doing a 180?

He's been grievously wounded before, that somehow failed to see him fail to take similar risks later.
 
Top