It's funny: another thread about Alexander living longer was posted just now. Seems that today is an Alexander-day. (Well, no complaints from me!)

Regarding this particular scenario, I feel obliged to point out what I did in the other thread, as well: the chances of Alexander living long enough to get an adult heir in place are slim. He had an unborn son by the time he died, and that's his heir. He won't start grooming some general or something: not unless his heir dies. So essentially you need a scenario wherein Alexander lives much longer-- preferably twinty years more, or something like that. Then he can leave his empire to his adult son, which is really the most stable thing to do. (Macedonian succession was notoriously messy: having a son as an undisputed heir is the best way to ensure things go smoothly.) Let's be honest: Alexander living twenty more years is, considering his extremely wild life, not exactly likely. It's frankly a miracle he lived as long as he did, considering how often he nearly died!

Yet I'll be the first to admit: the idea captivates me, too. Alexander living longer, founding a lasting empire? It certainly inspires me, and I happen to believe that if Alexander can live twenty more years (and if his heir is a capable administrator), the chances of this empire lasting for a good long time are actually fairly good (contrary to conventianal wisdom). Alexander himself was the weak point. He died before he was done; before he could cosolidate. But as I pointed out in the other thread just now:



My question, then, is simple: who exactly is going to be a threat of an empire that powerful? If Alexander lives twenty more years or so, that's plenty of time to carry through with his vision of culturally mixing his empire's populace. His army will be fully integrated, and loyal to the empire instead of to "Macedon", or "Greece", or "Persia".


I frankly admit that it has long been my wish to write a timeline on this exact topic. It may not be the most likely scenario, with the odds of Alexander living long enough being so low, but if we take that premise for granted, the resulting idea of a long-lived empire isn't so far-fetched. And very interesting...
I'd imagine that the cultures would significantly mix but the Greek and Macedonians would likely have more influence than other cultures, language wise you'd probably get a system similar to the eastern roman empire, people speak their own language in their daily lives but anyone of importance will have to learn the language of their conquers to get the best education, trade opportunities and be able to remain of good terms with their Greek and Macedonian overlords. Additionally you have the large mostly Greek and Macedonian cities founded through out. These are likely to exert influence on the surrounding area due to be centres of commerce and learning.

On the subject of expansion I think if they did go as far as Marseille it wouldn't be for a vey long time but southern Italy and Sicily would be primary targets. North Africa would be harder to conquer and Carthage would most likely be able to offer a very good trading partner as they would desire goods from the east. As a result they might consider it more profitable to have them trade at good rates, pay tribute and five and maybe take over Carthaginian territories in Sicily. Going back to Marseille I think those territories might be a target for Rome and Carthage who could be prevented from expanding into Sicily and southern Italy.

While in his own life time Alexander may not have attempted to invade India but generations later leaders would be more familiar with India and would have the desire to do what Alexander couldn't to prove themselves and get their place in the history books.
 
I do like the idea of an Alexandrian Empire that never falls, but IMO you need to introduce a character that works behind the scenes for Alexander. Trusted enough to set up the administration of the Empire, and clever enough to make it work.

Childish PoD, when Alexander is a child, Philip takes in a bright child (lets call him Amycus) that is orphaned and raises him, not as a brother, but as a member of Alexanders household, but is barred from being formally trained to fight. Strategy, Tactics, etc, but other than the occasional sparring match with Alexander, isn't formally trained to fight.

Instead, he takes note of the politics of Philip, and studies texts on governance furiously, be they Persian, Greek, Phoenician or otherwise. Raised essentially to be Alexanders right (or left) hand.

Otherwise, events unfold as expected, but perhaps with slightly less weird relationship stuff with Alexander and his mother.

As Alexander conquers, Amycus is given the responsibility of forming the institutions of his rule, following the Helleno-Iranian hybrid model Alexander idealised. This is where he shines. Rather than a system that strongmen can take advantage of, he designs it to be tied to institutions. Satraps reduced to non-hereditary viceroys, and most importantly - scared for the life of his reckless Alexander, Amycus designs a protocol for a regency in case of a young child, a protocol for if Alexander has a pregnant wife, and a protocol if there is neither situation.

After convincing Alexander to get his men to swear an oath to obey these rules, he carries on as per OTL.

Sadly, we get the need for Protocol 2 - with the generals forced into loyalty due to the alliance of Amycus and Hephaeston, a strong general, and the wealth and bureaucracy tied to Amycus, they ensure a transition to a regency for the newborn heir of Alexander.

(Sidenote: Amycus could have his own bloodline, very much the backroom workers for Alexanders bloodline)

That Regency is dominated by Generals, and the partnership of Amycus and Hephaeston, and the Satraps (or equivalent title in Macedon/invented for Macedon). Essentially leading to two houses - The House of Generals, and House of Satraps, which forms the basics of a pseudo-federal system. Each house appoints the leader of the other (i.e. Generals appoint the Head of the Satraps (aka Amycus), from the Satraps, and vice versa). Neither has primacy, but if there is a deadlock, it goes to the Heads. If that is still a deadlock, then nothing changes. Whilst the Satraps have exclusive control over policy, the Generals have exclusive control over the military, but they must both agree to change the law.

When the Heir to Alexander comes of age, he alone has the power to override the chambers (as he can literally order people to vote, and change their votes), and continues with his rule as expected, but we have the basics of a Federal semi-Constitutional Monarchy that can evolve over time.

After securing the succession, Amycus and Hephaeston become the leaders, and prepare for campaigns abroad to keep the Generals occupied (as that way they aren't in the best position to usurp the throne). Throwing them at campaigns to control Central Asia, the Hindu Kush, Africa, Illyria and the Black Sea.

It isn't perfect, but at least we have someone who can help to secure the succession, and the institutions of power, fixing a major weakness of Alexander.
 

Skallagrim

Banned

A very elaborate scenario, but is such an early and (presumably) drastic POD needed? There has been a lot of interpreting after the fact, but I'm pretty convinced that before his OTL death, Alexander had replaced Antipatros with Krateiros in Macedon (and sent for Antipatros to come east) with the specific goal of making him regent/senechal of the Empire. Essentially a man to do the day-to-day administrating, making sure that satraps were not misbehaving, with the power to replace corrupt officials etc. while Alexander launched his planned campaigns in Arabia and the west. Some have theorised that Alexander had sent for Antipatros to kill him (as he had done with Parmenion), but i consider that extremely unlikely. Antipatros had been utterly loyal, and his later OTL refusal to name his son Kassandros (openly hostile to Alexander) as his successor proves, to me, that Antipatros was not (as some have said) involved in some anti-Alexander plot led by Kassandros.

The point being: just as he died in OTL, Alexander had cleaned house in his administration, and he was (I believe) arranging for a capable regent to keep an eye on things in his future absence. In a scenario where Alexander lives much longer, this pretty much means his most essential problems are solved.

My preferred POD, by the way, would be to have Hephaistion survive. By all accounts, Hephaistion's death pretty much wrecked Alexander, and after that, he really started to spiral into self-destructive behaviour. Hephaistion was also a gifted general and a capable administrator, who typically managed to reason with Alexander when the king went a bit... overboard in his enthousiasm. Besides this, he also fully shared Alexander's vision of a culturally united empire, so he was Alexander's right-hand man in every way.

Basically: have Hephaistion survive, derive a less self-destructive Alexander from that POD, thus have him live as well, and have Antipatros serve as regent. That'll probably do the trick, really.
 
You and your simpler PoD!

If it was just to ensure the succession, I'd agree that you're suggestion is enough - but the OP did want an Empire that never falls. So I figured the best way is to create an administrator/lawmaker par-excellence in the manner that Alexander was a General and King. If the house has been cleaned up and reinforced in advance, that is more likely to create a strong Empire in the long run. Plus, nobody would cause an aide to go "Holy s**t I need to make sure this doesn't fall apart if he dies" than Alexander, so it creates a prime excuse to create protocols for Regency, No Heir Born Yet, or No Heir At All scenarios, and prevent open warfare from tearing apart the Empire - I think 'Amycus' has enough examples historically to be concerned by this - the Persian collapse after Darius fled, the internal conflicts of Macedon when Perdiccas died, the danger of foolish democracy in Athens, etc.

I just want to take advantage of the times for the OP
 
Top