Can Alexander's Empire reach Roman-level of success?

Let's say Alexander the Great lives longer and finally consolidates his new empire instead of conquering more, can he achieve the level of power and prestige that the Roman Empire had in OTL, under the right conditions?
 
The biggest factor is the Med. For the Romans it was the unifying highway, and they only really expanded much beyond it as they became more of an imperial machine. This is why the empire didn't grow in stages of removal from Rome itself, but rather in stages of removal from the Mediterranean. And even so, their 'hot spots' we're almost always the parts of the Empire farthest from the Med, ie Rhine/Danube, Mesopotamia and Britain.

Alexander's empire would be helped by the Med on it's Western half, but would be forced to rely on overland/river systems from it's center eastwards, including it's capital and principal satrapies (assuming stays Babylon).
 
The biggest factor is the Med. For the Romans it was the unifying highway, and they only really expanded much beyond it as they became more of an imperial machine. This is why the empire didn't grow in stages of removal from Rome itself, but rather in stages of removal from the Mediterranean. And even so, their 'hot spots' we're almost always the parts of the Empire farthest from the Med, ie Rhine/Danube, Mesopotamia and Britain.

Alexander's empire would be helped by the Med on it's Western half, but would be forced to rely on overland/river systems from it's center eastwards, including it's capital and principal satrapies (assuming stays Babylon).
Achaemenid Persia was able to last two centuries.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Since Alexander planned to conquer first Arabia (this was being prepped when he died) and then defeat Carthege (and the Samnites in Italy, likely bringing the south Italian Greek poleis into his empire while doing so), his ATL longer life almost automatically means he has the Med under his control. Well, the strategically relevant bits, anyway. Arabia also brings in considerable trade wealth (from all overseas trade with the east), so he's doing great, really.

Provided he doesn't mess it up, and his children are competent enough, they could keep (most of) this empire united for a good long while. It's the first of those caveats that poses the biggest risk: there's just a pretty good chance that Alexander will prove unable to resist some insanely ambitious move (like conquering India in a second try), and then it just becomes very likely that he dies in the attempt, and we still get the same wars between would-be successors-- just a bit later on.

(That said, it was very astutely noted on this board - years ago - that when he was the age at which Alexander died, Augustus had not yet consolidated anything much. Even after gaining power, his initial political strategy was "become consul again and again and again". Only when he fell severely ill, and could only barely prevent rivals from exploiting his weakness and ousting him, did he finally decide to institute fundamental political reforms. Which gave us the Principate. So, given those facts, I refuse to believe that Alexander could not have followed a similar path. It may not be the most likely outcome, but it's within the bounds of realism.)
 
"... and his children are competent enough"

Slight problem; I know that era's Greeks had, um, curious sexual mores, roughly translated 'boys for fun & girls for heirs' but, IIRC, Alexander shunned the latter...

Okay, we may assume he might marry a Princess or such to consolidate a take-over, but still there's a fair chance he'd die heir-less, or the kid(s) would be killed in a palace coup...

There's the other problem that, perhaps to keep his generals playing nice together rather than ambushing / poisoning / back-stabbing each other, he didn't indicate who he wanted as his heir. I can't see Alexander naming a heir before he got old, I cannot see him stopping before he'd reached the Pacific, never mind Indian subcontinent...

Hmm.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
"... and his children are competent enough"

Slight problem; I know that era's Greeks had, um, curious sexual mores, roughly translated 'boys for fun & girls for heirs' but, IIRC, Alexander shunned the latter...

Okay, we may assume he might marry a Princess or such to consolidate a take-over, but still there's a fair chance he'd die heir-less, or the kid(s) would be killed in a palace coup...

He did marry a princess (Roxanne) and he did sire an heir (Alexander IV) IOTL.
 
Fair enough.
Sadly, the kid only inherited a small corner of Alexander's 'empire', and he was killed in a palace coup before coming of age...
 
(That said, it was very astutely noted on this board - years ago - that when he was the age at which Alexander died, Augustus had not yet consolidated anything much. Even after gaining power, his initial political strategy was "become consul again and again and again". Only when he fell severely ill, and could only barely prevent rivals from exploiting his weakness and ousting him, did he finally decide to institute fundamental political reforms. Which gave us the Principate. So, given those facts, I refuse to believe that Alexander could not have followed a similar path. It may not be the most likely outcome, but it's within the bounds of realism.)
I don't think Alexander had to "institute fundamental political reforms" concerning the succession rules.
Because they were already there - the rules of the good old Macedonian monarchy. By the way those rules did not contradict much those of the Achaemenid Empire for what was worth.
Alexander had to die when his son(s) is/are old enough to take power, with some inevitable struggle.
The peculiarity of the Macedonian succession was that under-aged son(s) didn't have much of a chance to succeed. The regency (especially when a regent was not of the royal blood) was not that legitimate historically. The Macedonians saw it this way: he who leads them in battle is the ruler; he who doesn't - he is not a king. Something like that.
You can hardly change it by a decree, a law or something.
 
Last edited:
Top