How long can Alexanders empire realistically last without him?

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.

But how would doing away with Olympias help the empire if she actually did (or may have done things) that kept Alexander on the throne? Did she play an important role in causing trouble among the diadochi?
 
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.
To be honest, that was probably a net benefit to stability. She was also a primary mover in assisting Eumenes in marshalling the political support to hold control over the legitimist faction in the early diadochi wars, which given Eumenes was almost certainly the only player who could remotely be trusted to actually have been seriously aligned with the interests of the Argead family (for own self interested reasons too of course, but nevertheless, if there's a chance for Alexander ever living to rule, it's through Eumenes) was a pretty astute political move.

Olympias was far from merely a wrecking ball in the grand scheme of things-her political moves in the diadochi era were pretty savvy if you assume her ultimate goal was to maintain an Argead on the throne permanently.
 
But how would doing away with Olympias help the empire if she actually did (or may have done things) that kept Alexander on the throne? Did she play an important role in causing trouble among the diadochi?

My understanding is that Alexander actively tried to keep her out of the politics of the empire because she was a destabilizing element. If he lives past 323, it is entirely possible that he might be forced to get rid of in some fashion. She known in OTL to very, very ambitious.
 
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.

Those before and after Alexander didn't have the prestige associated with being the son of Alexander, the greatest conqueror of all time. History has shown that that sort of thing is very powerful in non-democratic cultures. Just look at North Korea. The first succession is the trickiest, but if he has an adult son that seems competent and likable, the generals could rally round as a compromise choice to stop them all fighting over it. Then once you have a demigod conqueror followed by a capable, well liked ruler, the dynasty is established.
 

trajen777

Banned
Have him last 20 years, die at 53. Have a son who is competent. Have the blending of the army be stabilized. You would need his son to rule for 20 plus years, and if he is of an Octavian type nature( organizer) then you have a stable empire.
 
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.

Greece yes. I'm not so sure about Anatolia. Some uppity Satraps would need to be called to order, but most of the inhabitants had long experience of being ruled by an absolute monarch. The Greek cities on the Aegean coast might get uppity, but I don't see why Asia Minor as a whole should be particularly disaffected.
 
I do not think who Alexander really need an adult competent heir for having his Empire surviving more o less intact. He just need to have an heir already born and with a solid power base behind him (both things who in OTL his only son had not at the time of his death).
I think who in a situation in which Alexander die four/five years later than OTL, with Hephaistion still alive and a son by Stateira (she is the best mother but Parysatis also can work) the Empire of Alexander will be able to survive. If Hephaistion is dead that scenario can work also with Craterus in a position of power in either Asia or Macedonia. Alexander’s young son will became king under the regency of his mother and Hephaistion/Craterus and will have the support of both the Persian nobility and the new Greco-Persian nobility created by Alexander with the weddings of Susa (in five years many of his generals will have children with the Persian aristocratics they married). OTL the ruin of Alexander’s Empire was in my opinion the absence at his death of both a clear heir and a clear regent (Hephaistion was dead and Craterus was in the middle of the journey between Alexander’s court and Macedonia). A son of Stateira or Parysatis named heir by Alexander would be recognized as his successor by both the army and Hephaistion or Craterus, both generals held in high trust by Alexander and themselves married to Persian princesses would be easily able to be recognized as regent and have the support of Macedonians and Persians
 
I do not think who Alexander really need an adult competent heir for having his Empire surviving more o less intact. He just need to have an heir already born and with a solid power base behind him (both things who in OTL his only son had not at the time of his death).
I think who in a situation in which Alexander die four/five years later than OTL, with Hephaistion still alive and a son by Stateira (she is the best mother but Parysatis also can work) the Empire of Alexander will be able to survive. If Hephaistion is dead that scenario can work also with Craterus in a position of power in either Asia or Macedonia. Alexander’s young son will became king under the regency of his mother and Hephaistion/Craterus and will have the support of both the Persian nobility and the new Greco-Persian nobility created by Alexander with the weddings of Susa (in five years many of his generals will have children with the Persian aristocratics they married). OTL the ruin of Alexander’s Empire was in my opinion the absence at his death of both a clear heir and a clear regent (Hephaistion was dead and Craterus was in the middle of the journey between Alexander’s court and Macedonia). A son of Stateira or Parysatis named heir by Alexander would be recognized as his successor by both the army and Hephaistion or Craterus, both generals held in high trust by Alexander and themselves married to Persian princesses would be easily able to be recognized as regent and have the support of Macedonians and Persians



Another interesting thought is what happens if be dies in India - killed by that arrow at Multan.

In this situation, the army is left deep within hostile country.There could be no messing about with postumous sons or nitwit brothers. They would have to have a real king. He might, of course, have faced disaffection when they got back west, but if the field army which elected him remains loyal, he should prevail.

This incidentally, would be a blessing in disguise for the soldiers themselves, since under a new king the army probably just backtracks the way it came rather than trying to cross the Makran desert. Would anyone else have really attempted that?
 
Another interesting thought is what happens if be dies in India - killed by that arrow at Multan.

In this situation, the army is left deep within hostile country.There could be no messing about with postumous sons or nitwit brothers. They would have to have a real king. He might, of course, have faced disaffection when they got back west, but if the field army which elected him remains loyal, he should prevail.

This incidentally, would be a blessing in disguise for the soldiers themselves, since under a new king the army probably just backtracks the way it came rather than trying to cross the Makran desert. Would anyone else have really attempted that?
That didn't always yield good results for the Romans were in a similar situation though
Plus, a good general does not always a good Emperor make, especially if you need a stabiliser
 
Three things are critical before we can answer this:

1) Just how much more does Alexander the Great conquer and consolidate?

2) How much longer does he live?

3) Does he leave a talented, capable heir to pass it on to in the end?

While the first two are important, the last one is critical. One bad king can undo a kingdom - two great ones in a row can lay a foundation that lasts for generations.
 
Top