Blood & Gold: Discussion Thread

Why do you say that?

The whole purpose behind Alexander's last major purge was to ensure the east doesn't revolt. Given that places such as Bactria and Parthia, not to mention Parsis, remained under Macedonian hands throughout the whole chaos of Alexander's death and then some (Bactria and Parthia only began seceding from the Seleucids by 250 BC), I'd say the east was in pretty good hands for Alexander.

And besides, it should be pointed out that the average Iranian wouldn't care who's running the empire, as long as his taxes and basically his life remains the same (or a little better, if that happened to be the case), and his satrap doesn't go out of his way to piss his subjects off. If Alexander has the loyalty of his satraps, (which, based off the argument of the last paragraph, he does) then there's not really much of a chance the east revolts.

Other than the whole, the Seleucids couldn't keep it, despite doing things right, so how are the Argeads going to?

I wouldn't think that Craterus would join him - he has much less to gain than Antipater does, so why risk it?
Vengeance on the guy who killed his sons?

If you think about it, despite all the chaos behind Alexander's death and the diadochi wars, and the emersion of a stronger Magadha with Chandragupta Maurya, the Seleucids still emerged controlling a large amount of former Achaemenid territory - they're missing Egypt, Coele-Syria, some Anatolian territory, and some eastern territory due to Maurya. There's no reason to suggest that the hold Persian core couldn't stay under Argead rule, provided Alexander has a reasonably old heir. Alexander's empire has fifteen or so years to sort of "get used to Alexander being shahanshah", and is fifteen more years into the whole merging the Persian and Macedonian aristocracies and putting Orientals in the army thing, which should help a lot, when you realize during that period OTL was complete war and chaos and territories constantly shifting around. Now, any other territories that Alex might conquer, say like Arabia and Carthage... they would almost certainly revolt, especially if they had popular satraps (the Greeks might too, depending on how bad that last revolt went for them). But the Persian core should stay basically the same, I should think.
Other than, again, this not being easy for the Selecuids, for reasons the chaos of OTL or not doesn't address.

Paranoid, I'll give you, but he had good reason to be - the history of his Kingdom being a major one, plus his controlling a whole other empire which has been villainized in his old empire for over a century, and there were some legitimate attempts against his life (not saying he was poisoned, because he definitely wasn't IMO, but you can't say that all of the attempts against his life were justifications for him to kill x person). Being at least a bit paranoid probably is what kept him alive for that long - if Philip had been a little paranoid, maybe he wouldn't have died.
Being a little bit paranoid is one thing, being massively paranoid is another. Killing anyone who looks like he might be a threat is too much.

And the history of his kingdom justifies being concerned about the succession, not his position once he's established himself, for the most part.

Irresponsible... fiscally, I assume? I wouldn't say he was any more fiscally irresponsible then any Persian king or any Macedonian King or any Greek politician - he just had more money to work with. Money existed to be spent, not to sit around. His constant lavish feasts were no different than Persian Kings; huge funerals were somewhat common for Persian Kings, and Hephaestion's, while probably a bit bigger than most Persian ones, can be excused due to Alexander and Hephaestion's relationship. According to Robin Lane Fox's book, Alexander still had 50,000 talents in the treasury when he died, and was receiving over 12,000 annually, so he was easily the richest man in the world at his death. When you put Alexander in the context of his time, situation, and culture, I'd say he was fiscally responsible.
In the context of his time, situation, and culture, he was unconcerned about anything but conquest and administration was so low on the list of his priorities that the odds of anything satisfactory happening from him in that regard is all but nil.

So no, not financially. Just general neglect of management. Unlike say, his father (picked as a man whose treasury was bare when he died but who handled things effectively).

Politically inept? At times yes, but it should be realized that Alexander had about the toughest political situation imaginable, and managed to hold the entire empire together throughout his entire life. Most of his poltical moves, such as the Susa Weddings, allowing Orientals to remain in power in many satrapies, and adopting Persian traditions, were solid political moves, I'd say - they were his only chance at earning legitimacy for the Persian aristocracy. If he had been like say Parmenion, or many of the older generals that had served with Philip, than it would've been impossible to hold the empire together. Sure it collapsed immediately after his death, but that's more the cards that he was dealt rather than his skill, I'd say. If he had more time ruling, I think you'd see a lot better political situation after his death.
The cards that he was dealt because of his actions and his ambitions. Unless he got a personality transformation so that he actually focused on governance instead of finding new lands to conquer, his empire will suffer for it.

"Holding the entire empire together" does not explain the breakdown of things while he was in India.

Campaignaholic... is that a bad thing? :p
Yes! Alexander has to sit down and focus on ruling his empire, not on adding more lands and more problems and more wars.

You're being very harsh towards Alexander, I think. While I certainly don't think Alexander was any kind of saint, I think he, for the most part, was an alright king morally for the standards of his day. He was a drunk, yes, and prone to violence, but I don't think he was an ancient Hitler or something like that. His wrongdoings only look worse because of the position he was in, rather than chemicals in his brain or whatever.
I am being harsh because Alexander deserves to be treated as what he was - a conqueror, and not much else.

An ancient Hitler, no. But a brutish conqueror with absolutely nothing to recommend him as a ruler, other than unsuccessful attempts at merging the Macedonian and Persian ruling classes.

The position he was in was because of his actions.

Well, he burned Persepolis and Thebes... those were both pretty big mistakes. For the most part, I agree that he did a good job politically, but he did have some major, glaring errors.
Not ensuring an acceptable, legitimate heir was in place on his death was such a huge blunder that it alone should be listed as one of the reasons to condemn him as Alexander the Failure.

Alexander is a lot like Richard the Lionhearted - a great general and a terrible king.

And because of his conquests, the consequences of his incompetence are far more devastating. Had Alexander spent the effort he spent on conquering as far as he could and planning to conquer still further - nevermind that what has passed for governance has already started causing problems that are making things worse and his actions in response aren't helping the situation - on ruling instead, he might be a great king instead of merely a Great King. But he didn't.
 
Last edited:
Showing how little support the Iranians had for Alexander?

Isn't this what conquerors do anyway? Plant garrisons or colonies in conquered lands in order to keep it. Why is that strange to you?



As stated below, barely sufficient to cover Macedon, and far short of that needed to run anything beyond Thrace.

Which did all of what? Repeating the name won't grant it powers and responsibilities and effectiveness, which is what I was questioning.

I repeated it, because you said "what council?", and I found it irritating as it seemed as if you didn't know it existed, despite my mentioning of it. A body of advisers, or a governing body will be needed run things in the kings absence. I mean pardon me, but I don't see why that is such an alien concept to you.



If he can find any.

What are you getting at? Did you think the Persian aristocracy just vanished after Alexander took power in their realm? Enough of them are going to have little option but to co-operate, because they needed to preserve their status in society by proving themselves loyal, or at least, indispensable in some way.



Agreed, but what can be held by the administration such as it is likely to fall short of the conquests due to said insufficiency.

Ooh, my head :eek:



So, this is sounding like how the Seleucids were not-quite-successful.

Its not like they're going to avoid making sacrifices eventually, but before withdrawing from some places, they're still going to explore options on how to keep the fringe satrapies dependent and subservient to them.

That sounds like a variant of the diadochi wars...then again, the alternative is just plain collapse or actual diadochi, so...

Interesting stuff for a timeline, but poor people who have to suffer while this is shuffled into a working form.

You were expecting some ATL utopia, perhaps?

As difficult as the Macedonian position is, there not just going to throw in the towel early. They would have much to lose by just leaving everything they've gained. They might not expand anymore than Alexander had done, but they can't just instantly withdraw either.

Better they see the sense down the line in dividing the realm amongst the Argead progeny before the Macedonian Strategoi, or provincial-based Persian aristocrats, start to take the empire's fate in their own hands.
 
Last edited:
Isn't this what conquerors do anyway? Plant garrisons or colonies in conquered lands in order to keep it. Why is that strange to you?

Its not so much a matter of strange, just that it isn't encouraging me to have much confidence in the Argeads holding Iran.

I repeated it, because you said "what council?", and I found it irritating as it seemed as if you didn't know it existed, despite my mentioning of it. A body of advisers, or a governing body will be needed run things in the kings absence. I mean pardon me, but I don't see why that is such an alien concept to you.

Again, it isn't a matter of it being strange and alien but a matter of "Is this something that will actually do much?"

What are you getting at? Did you think the Persian aristocracy just vanished after Alexander took power in their realm? Enough of them are going to have little option but to co-operate, because they needed to preserve their status in society by proving themselves loyal, or at least, indispensable in some way.

Which happens not to have been enough for the Seleucids, without the burden of ruling the full empire, to hold the place over the long term.

So...more likely, the Argeads are going to need to prove to the satraps that they (the Argeads) need to be accepted.

And so what I'm getting at is Alexander not recognizing this and his misadministration as of 323 BC being...a bad start.

Ooh, my head :eek:
Um?

Its not like they're going to avoid making sacrifices eventually, but before withdrawing from some places, they're still going to explore options on how to keep the fringe satrapies dependent and subservient to them.

They can explore options all they like

You were expecting some ATL utopia, perhaps?

No, just pointing out that the reason for me being harsh is that a lot of misery was unleashed on the world by Alexander and the consequences of his actions, and that won't be made less by this - utopia be damned, a longer-lived Alexander is not a better thing for the world.

As difficult as the Macedonian position is, there not just going to throw in the towel early. They would have much to lose by just leaving everything they've gained. They might not expand anymore than Alexander had done, but they can't just instantly withdraw either.

Better they see the sense down the line in dividing the realm amongst the Argead progeny before the Macedonian Strategoi, or provincial-based Persian aristocrats, start to take the empire's fate in their own hands.

True so far as it goes, but don't expect me to treat it as better than if Alexander the Destroyer suffocated from the umbilical cord. Trying and failing to hold the empire together is going to involve a lot of fighting.
 
I will apologize for exaggerating your Alex criticisms - having just finished reading Peter Green's book, and not particularly liking how he goes about villainizing Alexander with almost every decision he ever makes ever (besides on the battlefield), I was a bit too quick to make your opinion equal to his.

Other than the whole, the Seleucids couldn't keep it, despite doing things right, so how are the Argeads going to?
Other than, again, this not being easy for the Selecuids, for reasons the chaos of OTL or not doesn't address.

Why couldn't they keep all of Alexander's eastern conquests, up to India? Chandragupta Maurya's a pretty big reason there; however, with Alexander's survival, there's a much better chance for Chandragupta to be repelled. Even with most of the attention being placed on the west rather than east by the Seleucids throughout Seleucid rule, Bactria and Parthia were held for a long time, Iran even longer. The eastern provinces (besides Chandragupta's conquests) did stay with the Seleucids for a long time really, so there's not much to suggest that the Argeads would have significantly more trouble keeping that territory than the Seleucids did, other than they have more ground to cover.

Iran stayed under Seleucid control for well over a century; Bactria and Parthia were under Macedonian/Seleucid control for about seventy years; Mesopotamia and Syria were held for well over a century; Anatolian territory had been held for a long time at varying strengths. There were some revolts, but nothing the Seleucids couldn't handle until the Parthians got going. How does this suggest the east is "lost" for Alexander no matter what, especially when you consider that he's just finished making sure it isn't lost for him? In the long run, yes, the east probably won't be ruled by the Argeads as long as it was by the Seleucids, but I don't see why Alexander couldn't hold on to the east for the remainder of his life, or how Alexander IV can't at least hold what became the Seleucid territories, if not the whole Achaemenid core. Yes, an Alexander IV would have to face a lot of revolts, and probably won't maintain the whole empire - Thrace and Macedonia probably succeed in breaking away finally, and same with the Indus probably - but the rest of that can be re-subjugated and maintained by an Alexander IV character, I should think.

Vengeance on the guy who killed his sons?
Wait... I might have missed something, but when did Alexander kill Craterus' sons? Antipater's sons, yes, I got that in the OP, but when were Craterus' sons murdered? Did Craterus even have sons to murder?

Anyways, Antipater has a death sentence, and Craterus is getting an important satrapy. Why revolt against Alexander when he's got all the resources in the world with a man whose back is against the wall, and suffer the same fate as Antipater? And besides, Alexander obviously trusted Craterus enough to give him the satrapy over Antipater in the first place - that suggests that Craterus wasn't about to revolt at his first chance.
 
Last edited:
I will apologize for exaggerating your Alex criticisms - having just finished reading Peter Green's book, and not particularly liking how he goes about villainizing Alexander with almost every decision he ever makes ever (besides on the battlefield), I was a bit too quick to make your opinion equal to his.
No worries, apology accepted. I don't think Alexander was too extremely villainous (On the scale of historical conquerors, he's certainly one of the bastards, but only one - and certainly not up there with Hitler or Genghis Khan).

I do however think he was a terrible king whose actions caused devastating consequences - but that's not the same thing as being intentionally malevolent.

Never read Peter Green, so none of my arguments relate to his.

Why couldn't they keep all of Alexander's eastern conquests, up to India? Chandragupta Maurya's a pretty big reason there; however, with Alexander's survival, there's a much better chance for Chandragupta to be repelled. Even with most of the attention being placed on the west rather than east by the Seleucids throughout Seleucid rule, Bactria and Parthia were held for a long time, Iran even longer. The eastern provinces (besides Chandragupta's conquests) did stay with the Seleucids for a long time really, so there's not much to suggest that the Argeads would have significantly more trouble keeping that territory than the Seleucids did, other than they have more ground to cover.
Well, the point is that the Seleucids did have trouble with them, and part of it is a lack of enthusiasm for supporting Macedonian rule (along with Chandragupta).

Iran stayed under Seleucid control for well over a century; Bactria and Parthia were under Macedonian/Seleucid control for about seventy years; Mesopotamia and Syria were held for well over a century; Anatolian territory had been held for a long time at varying strengths. There were some revolts, but nothing the Seleucids couldn't handle until the Parthians got going. How does this suggest the east is "lost" for Alexander no matter what, especially when you consider that he's just finished making sure it isn't lost for him?
The fact that the people who were capable rulers and were good administrators lost it in the end?

In the long run, yes, the east probably won't be ruled by the Argeads as long as it was by the Seleucids, but I don't see why Alexander couldn't hold on to the east for the remainder of his life, or how Alexander IV can't at least hold what became the Seleucid territories, if not the whole Achaemenid core. Yes, an Alexander IV would have to face a lot of revolts, and probably won't maintain the whole empire - Thrace and Macedonia probably succeed in breaking away finally, and same with the Indus probably - but the rest of that can be re-subjugated and maintained by an Alexander IV character, I should think.
Alexander (III) might be able to hold it until the end of his life. That wouldn't surprise me too much. Iskander (Aka Alexander IV, Alexander the Conqueror's son - using the Persian form to distinguish him from dad so we know which Alexander I mean when I write Alexander as opposed to Iskander, and vice-versa) may have more trouble, or less. Primarily I just think in the long run its hopeless - as opposed to this being a possibly lasting-empire.

Emphasized because there's a bad trend here (AH.com) to treat empires as lasting and stable.

Wait... I might have missed something, but when did Alexander kill Craterus' sons? Antipater's sons, yes, I got that in the OP, but when were Craterus' sons murdered? Did Craterus even have sons to murder?
Didn't someone mention (as part of things that happen post-POD) Alexander doing so? If not, mega mea culpa.

Anyways, Antipater has a death sentence, and Craterus is getting an important satrapy. Why revolt against Alexander when he's got all the resources in the world with a man whose back is against the wall, and suffer the same fate as Antipater? And besides, Alexander obviously trusted Craterus enough to give him the satrapy over Antipater in the first place - that suggests that Craterus wasn't about to revolt at his first chance.
See above. Honestly a lot depends on what Alexander does in the next five or so years, I think (and from there the next ten, etc.). If Alexander regards Craterus as a loyal lieutenant, he probably will act accordingly more or less - but Alexander being suspicious of everyone with or without provocation and violent when his suspicious were particularly aroused makes me feel uncertain.
 
Top