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?
Vengeance on the guy who killed his sons?I wouldn't think that Craterus would join him - he has much less to gain than Antipater does, so why risk it?
Other than, again, this not being easy for the Selecuids, for reasons the chaos of OTL or not doesn't address.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.
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.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.
And the history of his kingdom justifies being concerned about the succession, not his position once he's established himself, for the most part.
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.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.
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).
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.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.
"Holding the entire empire together" does not explain the breakdown of things while he was in India.
Yes! Alexander has to sit down and focus on ruling his empire, not on adding more lands and more problems and more wars.Campaignaholic... is that a bad thing?![]()
I am being harsh because Alexander deserves to be treated as what he was - a conqueror, and not much else.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.
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.
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.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.
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: