How long can Alexanders empire realistically last without him?

So my question im posing to you today is

If Alexander can establish an empire with an actual line of coherent succession instead of it almost immediately falling apart without him

How much longer can it last?
 
If he has a broadly accepted and competent heir, followed by further mostly competent heirs, then centuries. Holding on to the Indian territories seems unlikely, and a lot of autonomy would have to be given to leaders in central Asia, but the Greek/Egyptian/Persian core could certainly be governed for a long time. Especially if a new syncretic nobility is founded.
 
A relatively stable one with a semi stable line of sucession

I guess the question im asking is even with a stable line of sucession

Was Alexanders empire too big to last?
It wasn't too big to last (after all, it wasn't much bigger than the Achaemenid Empire). He needs first and foremost to have an adult heir, or at least a near adult heir, though. This is probably the toughest part-his lifestyle and tendency to put himself in danger in battle doesn't bode well for living long.

That said, it's unlikely that his entire empire could stay together. An Alexander that lives longer is also conquering into Arabia and Carthage-just from sheer communication and logistical lines, holding these territories directly (particularly Carthage and any other territory in the Western Mediterranean) will be difficult, and in any case any potential successor will probably have more pressing issues than maintaining control of such a far flung territory. A similar problem is the Indian territories, but more because of the potential rise of Chrandragupta. But the core of the empire at Alexander's OTL death can be maintained.
 
Was Alexanders empire too big to last?
It wasn't too big, it was too divided
Before Alexander's death in OTL, his reign was plagued by discountent both by the greeks and the macedonians who were unhappy with Alexander's adoption of persian traditions ( including the idea of him being a god or the fact that everybody ned to kneel in front of him), often causing either revolts or cospiracies against him
There is also the problem that in the last period of his life he was apparently sufferimg of some kind of depression and paranoid tendencies, that afflicted his reign
The way i see it , the causes for the fall of his empire were already presents even before his death
 
It wasn't too big to last (after all, it wasn't much bigger than the Achaemenid Empire). He needs first and foremost to have an adult heir, or at least a near adult heir, though. This is probably the toughest part-his lifestyle and tendency to put himself in danger in battle doesn't bode well for living long.

That said, it's unlikely that his entire empire could stay together. An Alexander that lives longer is also conquering into Arabia and Carthage-just from sheer communication and logistical lines, holding these territories directly (particularly Carthage and any other territory in the Western Mediterranean) will be difficult, and in any case any potential successor will probably have more pressing issues than maintaining control of such a far flung territory. A similar problem is the Indian territories, but more because of the potential rise of Chrandragupta. But the core of the empire at Alexander's OTL death can be maintained.

Carthage and Arabia are actually less problematic than what was already in his Empire in OTL. With a massive army based in Babylon, a decent fleet can sail to these cities and invade them fairly easily. These places don't have much of a survivable hinterland to retreat to. Greece & Macedonia are in a better position in terms of number of people, but they are close enough to the imperial core to be put down too. Central Asia, on the other hand, is inaccessible by sea and takes an age to march to and India has a huge number of people that can be rallied against the next trip East.
 
If the empire manages to stabilize, I don't see any existential threat (assuming things go as OTL elsewhere) to the Empire until a while later. Even an alt-Rome or alt-Parthia could be fought off, or butterflied so they never interfere in the Empire. The Romans might never have the opportunity to get involved with the politics of the East, and wouldn't be able to present themselves as liberators of the Hellenistic World if said world is already united. The Parthians might not be able to take advantage of Seleucid juggling of eastern and western concerns and break free at all. The largest threats I could see are either internal or barbarian invasions/migrations.
 
Wasn't he suffering of some kinds of mental problems before his death in OTL?
I don't think so? He was always prone to fits of anger, but that was just baked into his personality, and there was often a bit of strategic thinking behind it (particularly when dealing with the discontent among the soldiers). The same temper that led him to drunkenly kill Cleitus led him to nearly get himself killed at the siege of Multan.

Carthage and Arabia are actually less problematic than what was already in his Empire in OTL. With a massive army based in Babylon, a decent fleet can sail to these cities and invade them fairly easily. These places don't have much of a survivable hinterland to retreat to. Greece & Macedonia are in a better position in terms of number of people, but they are close enough to the imperial core to be put down too. Central Asia, on the other hand, is inaccessible by sea and takes an age to march to and India has a huge number of people that can be rallied against the next trip East.
Sure but the time, resources and effort necessary to marshal that kind of invasion are draining, and maintaining control of Carthage just is not a priority for a ruler who still needs to consolidate their hold on core territory. I think an underestimated part of this here is: how much effort does Alexander dedicate to consolidation? There's a lot of cleanup operations that need to be done, particularly in Anatolia and Thrace, that IOTL were left to his successors. That's not as adventorous or as glorious as reaching the Pillars of Hercules, but it's much more important. If Alexander could get his itch for military campaigns from those smaller operations, it would go a long way.
 
The Romans might never have the opportunity to get involved with the politics of the East, and wouldn't be able to present themselves as liberators of the Hellenistic World if said world is already united.
I don't see troubles in mainland Greece disappearing in a united Alexandrian Empire. Arguably Greece, alongside Anatolia could easily become the most volatile parts of the Alexandrian Empire as it was in the Hellenistic world IOTL.
 
I don't see troubles in mainland Greece disappearing in a united Alexandrian Empire. Arguably Greece, alongside Anatolia could easily become the most volatile parts of the Alexandrian Empire as it was in the Hellenistic world IOTL.
Okay, but it would certainly be a lot easier to resolve issues in anatolia (I don't know about mainland greece or macedon), and a successor of a united empire would have more time and resources to do so right? Though I suppose a few bad successors or unresolved issues could always arise.
 
I don't think so
According to wikipedia his character got worse in the last years of his life:

During his final years, and especially after the death of Hephaestion, Alexander began to exhibit signs of megalomania and paranoia.[129] His extraordinary achievements, coupled with his own ineffable sense of destiny and the flattery of his companions, may have combined to produce this effect.[178] His delusions of grandeur are readily visible in his will and in his desire to conquer the world,[129] in as much as he is by various sources described as having boundless ambition,[179][180] an epithet, the meaning of which has descended into an historical cliché.[181][182]

He appears to have believed himself a deity, or at least sought to deify himself.[129]Olympias always insisted to him that he was the son of Zeus,[183] a theory apparently confirmed to him by the oracle of Amun at Siwa.[184] He began to identify himself as the son of Zeus-Ammon.[184
 
According to wikipedia his character got worse in the last years of his life:

During his final years, and especially after the death of Hephaestion, Alexander began to exhibit signs of megalomania and paranoia.[129] His extraordinary achievements, coupled with his own ineffable sense of destiny and the flattery of his companions, may have combined to produce this effect.[178] His delusions of grandeur are readily visible in his will and in his desire to conquer the world,[129] in as much as he is by various sources described as having boundless ambition,[179][180] an epithet, the meaning of which has descended into an historical cliché.[181][182]

He appears to have believed himself a deity, or at least sought to deify himself.[129]Olympias always insisted to him that he was the son of Zeus,[183] a theory apparently confirmed to him by the oracle of Amun at Siwa.[184] He began to identify himself as the son of Zeus-Ammon.[184
To be fair about megalomania, he did conquer most of the known world by 33 and was seen as the example of ultimate achievements for the next 2.5 millenias. That kind of thing would go to anybody's head
 
According to wikipedia his character got worse in the last years of his life:

During his final years, and especially after the death of Hephaestion, Alexander began to exhibit signs of megalomania and paranoia.[129] His extraordinary achievements, coupled with his own ineffable sense of destiny and the flattery of his companions, may have combined to produce this effect.[178] His delusions of grandeur are readily visible in his will and in his desire to conquer the world,[129] in as much as he is by various sources described as having boundless ambition,[179][180] an epithet, the meaning of which has descended into an historical cliché.[181][182]

He appears to have believed himself a deity, or at least sought to deify himself.[129]Olympias always insisted to him that he was the son of Zeus,[183] a theory apparently confirmed to him by the oracle of Amun at Siwa.[184] He began to identify himself as the son of Zeus-Ammon.[184
See, I contest that they were getting much worse. All of this was present at the start of his reign-after all, Alexander started his reign with a desire to conquer the entire Persian Empire. Philip was pretty ambitious for his time, but even he was not that ambitious. Alexander began his reign with megalomania and delusions of grandeur and he was ruthless in eliminating opposition from pretty early on.

Though I suppose a few bad successors or unresolved issues could always arise.
This is the biggest thing-also succession in general. Alexander's peaceful ascension to the throne after Philip's assassination was the exception to the rule in Macedonian politics-in many ways, the diadochi wars that followed Alexander's death were a reversion to the bloody successions of the past, just played out on a much grander scale than a backwater hill kingdom in northern Greece. I'm not sure how you establish a particularly stable succession system either, since the diadochi kingdoms suffered from a similar problem throughout the Hellenistic era.
 
To be fair about megalomania, he did conquer most of the known world by 33 and was seen as the example of ultimate achievements for the next 2.5 millenias. That kind of thing would go to anybody's head



See, I contest that they were getting much worse. All of this was present at the start of his reign-after all, Alexander started his reign with a desire to conquer the entire Persian Empire. Philip was pretty ambitious for his time, but even he was not that ambitious. Alexander began his reign with megalomania and delusions of grandeur and he was ruthless in eliminating opposition from pretty early on.
Yeah , but there is a difference between this and proclaiming youself the son of a god, forcing people to adore you
Considering this and the fact that in OTL many of his generals were unhappy with his adoption of persian traditions, is it possible that they will eliminate him?
As @SlyDessertFox pointed out, royal succession in Macedonia was far from peaceful so i wouldn't exclude the idea of Alexander getting killed by his own men
 
Considering this and the fact that in OTL many of his generals were unhappy with his adoption of persian traditions, is it possible that they will eliminate him?
I don't really think so. Alexander was pretty good at eliminating opposition-by the time of his death, almost all the holdovers from Philip were either eliminated or marginalized, and any discontent from the higher ups was contained by sending Craterus off to Macedonia. By the time of his death his inner circle was a group of eccentric personalities who didn't care much for each other but had the one commonality of loyalty to and friendship with Alexander.
 
If well-ruled by most generations, a united Macedonian Empire could last many centuries, perhaps becoming a equivalent of the Roman Empire in some alternate timeline.
 
I wonder if Olympias needs to go away somehow, as she was basically the Cersei Lannister of Hellenistic Greece. Consider, after all that she may have had Philip murdered so that Alexander could sit the Macedonian throne.

Edit: we are also fairly certain that she had Eurydice and her children done away with to protect Alexander’s claim to the throne.
 
Last edited:
Top