Did Gaius Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great Prepare their Family Better

[Alex Zetsu]

Given information they knew at the time, did Gaius Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great of Macedon prepare their family for success better? If all land were interchangable, then having more land counts, for example, being fabulously wealthy and controling a 400,000 square mile polity would not be as good as being fabulously wealthy and controlling 30% of a polity that used to be 3,000,000 square miles but got stuck in a civil war. However, land is not all interchangeable, so size only can't be the way to go.

It seems obvious Julius Caesar had the better succession plan. After all, his adopted son became Augustus and the family ruled over Rome. Meanwhile, Phillip III and Alexander IV were the end of the line for their family's rule over Macedon. Julius Caesar unambitiously made his grandnephew Octavius his heir in his will, so good step for preparing that. For Caesar, he had no way of knowing that Lucious Antonius and Fulvia (almost certainly with Marcus Antonius's support given that his wife was in on it) would turn on Octavian.

Was it true that Julius Caesar had the better plan given knowledge he knew at that time? For Alexander the great, Antipater, Ptolemy, and Lysimachus appeared to be loyal officers like Parmenion. Imagine a timeline where the first 3 were 100% loyal to the royal family. Well, history would be more or less the same until Alexander's death. So it isn't like he had any indication that Ptolemy would try to carve out an independent power base. Alexander left his legacy to an apparently loyal officer crop thinking they could carry it out. Caesar named his heir but seemed to have not done much more preparation either. Maybe both of them didn't have great succession plans and Caesar's family ended up better by luck?

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

For Alexander the great, Antipater, Ptolemy, and Lysimachus appeared to be loyal officers like Parmenion... Alexander left his legacy to an apparently loyal officer crop thinking they could carry it out.

I mean, there's only so many ways you can interpret "To the strongest", isn't there?

Julius Caesar takes this contest, by far. Bonus points -- his succession plan worked despite being killed suddenly and unexpectedly, while Alexander supposedly had a fair amount of time dying of sickness to realize "Yeah, I should probably tie some of these details down".

 

[Alex Zetsu]

Alexander supposedly had a fair amount of time dying of sickness to realize "Yeah, I should probably tie some of these details down".

Actually he told Antipater "if you're so worried about what happens if I die on campaign, why don't you draft a succession plan while I'm gone."

So he had... a plan.

The details seem light

 

[Socrates]

I mean, there's only so many ways you can interpret "To the strongest", isn't there?

Julius Caesar takes this contest, by far. Bonus points -- his succession plan worked despite being killed suddenly and unexpectedly, while Alexander supposedly had a fair amount of time dying of sickness to realize "Yeah, I should probably tie some of these details down".

Alexander was only 33. He probably believed he had another decade or two to prepare his heir. Also, I find it pretty persuasive that he named Krateros and the other general present intentionally misheard him.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Alexander was only 33. He probably believed he had another decade or two to prepare his heir.

Augustus wasn't much older in 23 BC when he lay sick and dying, and he did a much better job accounting for his mortality in that moment.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

Alexander was only 33. He probably believed he had another decade or two to prepare his heir. Also, I find it pretty persuasive that he named Krateros and the other general present intentionally misheard him.

As I said I'm asking about given the information people knew at this time, no the ultimate success. The fact is... camp disease is a major problem for any campaigning commander (yes he died of a different disease, but it is still a threat). Loyal and power-hungry generals would behave the same while he was alive, so it might be hard to fault him for thinking about this, but perhaps he should have made more preparations than "let Antipater make something up until I make a final decision." He had a plan... but maybe even with what he knew at the time there should have been more details?

 

[jacob ningen]

Alexander was only 33. He probably believed he had another decade or two to prepare his heir. Also, I find it pretty persuasive that he named Krateros and the other general present intentionally misheard him.

Perdiccas stole Roxanne's son, and Ptolemy stole his corpse. Both attempts at a coup that he couldnt have predicted.(Did he give any instructions on custodianship of his son)

 

[Alex Zetsu]

Augustus wasn't much older in 23 BC when he lay sick and dying, and he did a much better job accounting for his mortality in that moment.

I think given how things turns out it's clear in terms of succession plan is Augustus > Caesar > Alexnader. I also think little argument can be made here.

In terms of what they knew at the time they made their plans (which is the point of the OP)... I'd also argue the same order, but I'm less sure of it.

In any event, age isn't really much of an excuse. If you're a 16-year-old king who had an epic 3-year reign where you reclaimed your great-grandfather's glory and then died to dysentery, it might be explainable why oy didn't have a plan for succession, but while explainable it still means you left your family in trouble. Giving Antipater a blank check to draw up a succession plan is a plan... not sure if it's a good one even if he assumed his officer corp was loyal. At the very least, we can criticize it for lacking details.

 

[wcv215]

Caesar wins because…he had a succession plan. “To the strongest” is not a plan. It barely qualifies as a idea. Yes Caesar didn’t do much to prepare Octavian, but he had certainly laid the groundwork to do so before being assassinated. He’d taken the boy in and begun tutoring him, and was planning to do more in the East.

Course them the question is whether that would have been a disaster given Parthia was not Gaul.

 

[jacob ningen]

Augustus wasn't much older in 23 BC when he lay sick and dying, and he did a much better job accounting for his mortality in that moment.

He also had multiple cases of succession crises staring him in the face. Gaius's death for one, The Hasmonean civil war for another, Mithridates and Juba for more.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

Caesar wins because…he had a succession plan. “To the strongest” is not a plan. It barely qualifies as a idea. Yes Caesar didn’t do much to prepare Octavian, but he had certainly laid the groundwork to do so before being assassinated. He’d taken the boy in and begun tutoring him, and was planning to do more in the East.

Alexander's plan wasn't "to the strongest" he told Antipater who asked "what happens if you die on campaign?" to "well, I'm authorizing you to make a plan"

So he had a plan and it wasn't "to the strongest." "to the strongest" was an outcome of the succession wars, it wasn't Alexander's plan.

Ok admittedly Caesar taking Octavian in and tutoring him was probably better than that.

Edit: OK... Nevermind. I just realized on his deathbed he actually did replace his old succession plan of "Antipeter decides" to "to the strongest." Aside from the fact that "to the strongest" is pretty idiotic in itself, even if he explicitly named a heir instead of "to the strongest", a deathbed wish only clarifies things if there wasn't a succession plan before. If you name a heir after you gave authorization to someone else to go heir shopping for you, this only adds confusion . Caesar wins this by a landslide. Antipeter was authorized to make a succession plan when Alexander went out to campaign and it was still in place when he married so I assumed it was the standing plan.

 

[Elfwine]

Caesar wins because…he had a succession plan. “To the strongest” is not a plan. It barely qualifies as a idea.

Especially with Macedon's record of "the king is dead, things are unstable for years afterwards even when he has adult sons."

"To Krateros." would hardly be a step up over "to the strongest." in that context, but Alexander ignored it on his deathbed as vigorously as he'd ignored it for the rest of his time as king.

So he had a plan and it wasn't "to the strongest." "to the strongest" was an outcome of the succession wars, it wasn't Alexander's plan. At least at the time of his marriage, Antipeter was still authorized to decide succession.

That "at least at the time of his marriage" leaves a lot of room for it being "my intent now" not being "my final intent", especially with someone like Alexander, unfortunately for Macedon.

I don't think there's anything suggesting even this counts as preparing his family at all, honestly. Even a situation of with his officers not fighting over his empire is still not remotely adequate preparation for his death.

 

[Socrates]

Caesar wins because…he had a succession plan. “To the strongest” is not a plan. It barely qualifies as a idea. Yes Caesar didn’t do much to prepare Octavian, but he had certainly laid the groundwork to do so before being assassinated. He’d taken the boy in and begun tutoring him, and was planning to do more in the East.

Course them the question is whether that would have been a disaster given Parthia was not Gaul.

Did Caesar really setup Octavianus that well vs Marcus Antonius?

 

[Alex Zetsu]

Did Caesar really setup Octavianus that well vs Marcus Antonius?

He adopted Octavius, so legally his heir was well setup. Maybe he could have personally prepared the young man better. Now that I realize that Alexander took out his old succession plan of "Antipater decides" to "to the strongest" this isn't even a conest

 

[wcv215]

Did Caesar really setup Octavianus that well vs Marcus Antonius?

Not really. But he did adopt him, making Octavian immediately THE new major player everyone had to scramble and adapt to. And as I noted, he planned to do more preparation before his sudden assassination.

 

[isabella]

He adopted Octavius, so legally his heir was well setup. Maybe he could have personally prepared the young man better. Now that I realize that Alexander took out his old succession plan of "Antipater decides" to "to the strongest" this isn't even a conest

I would point who the highest ranking among Alexander’s officers and companions, the only one other that Alexander and Hephaestion to marry a Persian princess (Amestris, niece of Darius) was absent from Babylonia (as he had received the job to replace Antipater as regent in Macedonia) and his name, Craterus, sounded very alike to ”strongest” in Greek…

Especially with Macedon's record of "the king is dead, things are unstable for years afterwards even when he has adult sons."

"To Krateros." would hardly be a step up over "to the strongest." in that context, but Alexander ignored it on his deathbed as vigorously as he'd ignored it for the rest of his time as king.

Well, at least Alexander tried to improvise something as he was dying pretty early, had not yet a living son, but one or two pregnant wives and his most logical choice as regent had died some months earlier… He just died in the worst possible moment

 

[isabella]

Not really. But he did adopt him, making Octavian immediately THE new major player everyone had to scramble and adapt to. And as I noted, he planned to do more preparation before his sudden assassination.

Absolutely false. Octavian was not and was not intended to be the political heir of Caesar as that inheritance was likely to go to some of the major players of the Caesarian party, most likely Antonius or Lepidus (or both)

 

[Alex Zetsu]

Well, at least Alexander tried to improvise something as he was dying pretty early, had not yet a living son, but one or two pregnant wives and his most logical choice as regent had died some months earlier… He just died in the worst possible moment

He could have at least let his previous succession plan stay in place... or heck just give it to Craterus (although this still fails the OP unless Craterus marries into Alexander's family)

 

[Karl der Große]

Absolutely false. Octavian was not and was not intended to be the political heir of Caesar as that inheritance was likely to go to some of the major players of the Caesarian party, most likely Antonius or Lepidus (or both)

Pretty bizarre then for Caesar to adopt Octavius in his will. I'd say that makes it clear Octavius is meant to be Caesar's political heir. I DO think Octavius was meant to be a temporary heir until Caesar decided upon someone more suitable (once he could be sure of Antonius or Decimus Brutus's suitability).

 

[wcv215]

Absolutely false. Octavian was not and was not intended to be the political heir of Caesar as that inheritance was likely to go to some of the major players of the Caesarian party, most likely Antonius or Lepidus (or both)

🙄

This of course is why Caesar adopted Octavian as his son and heir.