Continuing Alexander's Empire After Alexander

Just what it says on the label. Two questions here:

1. Is it possible without crossing into ASB territory to keep the Empire in one piece after Alexander dies, or is the breakup inevitable? If so how might this be accomplished?

2. Assuming it can be held together, what does its future hold: expansion (perhaps the realization of Alexander's planned Arabian campaign, or another crack at India, or maybe even some forays into Europe), static, or decay/collapse under its own massive weight?
 
It could hold together if Alexander lived long enough to have a generally accepted heir. Remember that his empire broke appart because he dies suddenly and had no heir.
 
Holding together Persia, Greece and Egypt is certainly possible from a base in Babylon. However, holding onto densely-populated Indian possessions the other side of a dry, disparate Iranian plateau seems pretty unlikely.
 
Alexanders empire was extremely personal one, it was largely based on his personality, i think even if he did live longer his eventual successor would have to be a military genius on a par with Alexander himself, probably fighting numerous revolts and most likely other claimants trying to get a peice of Alexanders vast empire, i think its possible that if Alexanders successor did'nt have the same zeal for conquest and more for administration, he'd probably surrender India, as it was too costly to defend and too hard to get to, but i think a renewed plan to conquer Arabia is viable, but i definately like the question :rolleyes:
 
Howabout Alexander dies in India? Iirc he nearly did, from an arrow wound at some siege or other.

Cut off, deep in enemy country, the generals can't mess about with posthumous sons (if any) or halfwit brothers. To extricate themselves they need a real king. The likeliest choices are Hephaistion, Seleucus or Perdiccas. If Alexander lives long enough to make a choice, it will be Hephaistion, otherwise the Army will have to elect someone.

I don't see why the Empire couldn't hold together for quite a while. It is little bigger than the Persian Empire, which is two centuries old. But it probably won't do much expanding until the new ruler has consolidated his position - or failed to do so.
 
One should keep in mind that just about every Macedonian king, on his death, has seen a crisis occur. Whether he had an adult heir or not.

Why is Alexander going to be any different? Even if lives another eighteen or so years (long enough for his not-yet-born as of his OTL death son to grow up). Macedonian government is not stable.

Add that to the fact the Macedonians and Greeks don't have the administrative skills to manage this large an empire (and on the scale of their experiences, it is colossal) and...it won't end well. And this is ignoring the peoples eager to break away from Macedonian rule.

Its not about military genius. Its about an administrative system.

As ImmortalImpi said more concisely.
 
Yet the Empire didn't do too badly at first.

Seleucus abandoned the outlying Satrapies in India, but by 280BC he had reunited just about everything bar Macedon itself and Egypt. So it wasn't that far from being restored. Is there any particular reason why, given better luck, he or some other king couldn't have reacquired M&E as well?
 
Last edited:
Top