Lately, I've been considering resurrecting my Blood & Gold TL (a link to which can be found below, for those of you unfamiliar). However, I'm thinking of approaching it from a very different angle than I've ever seen for dealing with an Alexander the Great TL. The general cliché is that if Alexander were to survive his illness, he'd launch further campaigns and conquer more territories. But, what I've never heard asked is, quite simply, this even realistic?
The Greeks are getting pissed off and already planning a revolt (which in OTL became the Lamian War). Is it not so hard to imagine them revolting around 322 B.C. regardless of whether or not Alexander is still alive? Also, Antipater was in a very difficult situation in 323 B.C. as Alexander wanted him to come to Babylon and answer charges of treason being leveled against him, which basically is certain death, considering the recent purges enacted. He's popular in Macedon and a pretty good commander, what's to stop him also from rebelling if the Greeks do the same? And, considering you have Chandragupta rising in India at this time, it's only a matter of time before he invades the Argead possessions in the east.
Here's the scenario I'm considering:
Alexander recovers and continues preparations to invade Arabia and Carthage. Perhaps he also suspects that he's been poisoned and executes Cassander and his retinue (they having recently arrived to plead for Antipater). Meanwhile, the Greeks revolt against his rule, led by the Athenians (maybe after hearing a rumor that he's died after all). Antipater decides to rebel as well and possibly also ally with the Greeks (how likely is it that Antigonus will also throw in his lot with him? Plenty of the Macedonian generals are getting fed up with the Alex's Oriental pretensions). Perhaps Cappadocia and Bithynia also seize their chance and rise up as in OTL. So, Alexander is forced to deal with consolidating the west and temporarily abandons his plans to invade Arabia.
He somehow manages to crush the rebellions and consolidate the Balkans and Anatolia. However, no sooner has he done so than Chandragupta invades and Alexander has to turn his attentions to the east and secure the Indian frontiers, which he also, perhaps, somehow is able to do and defeat Chandragupta (no small feat by any means).
By the time he's finished, he's managed to consolidate his empire at least and maybe also kept his reputation as undefeated. Still, he's expended a great deal of effort in doing so, and though he might still plan for more campaigns, nothing really ever comes of them and he dies around 305 B.C. or earlier, leaving the empire to his son (perhaps by Statira and not Roxana's son, since that always seemed an interesting possibility). Of course, his son, who'll be around eighteen, will have to fight some wars of his own to keep his empire (maybe further revolts in Greece?).
What does everyone think? It seems far more realistic than an Alexander wank, as the empire is pretty much stretched to its limits right now.
I'm curious to hear thoughts on this, since I know a lot of people enjoyed both versions of Blood & Gold.
Thanks,
Endymion