Of Satraps and Kings

[Practical Lobster]

So far the Kings seem content to be puppets. While Amyntas is only 13, Alexander IV is an 18 year old, the very fact of which probably lends some weirdness to Perdikkas' claim to the regency - although I'm sure he could get another title.

I'm mostly just curious when Alexander IV is going to start acting of his own accord - and if he acquired any of his father's talents or intelligence. Regardless his mere life and existence delegitimizes anyone else's claim to the Kingship in such a way that I just don't see how it's possible that we even see anyone else call themselves Kings (except maybe Ptolemy). I rather doubt a lot of the rank and file Makedonians would even be willing to fight against him or Amyntas.

That said, the more clever Diadokhoi should be thinking about their endgame right about now. What does "winning" look like for them, and how will they attain it?

One of the more interesting things about this alternate civil war, I think, is that it can't be nearly as much about personal power as in OTL because the state structure is stronger and more legitimate.

Edit: and we already know Seleukos will be forced to flee to Africa. So this is really just the story of how far he can plummet. At least maybe there will be glory for him in the West?

 

[SlyDessertFox]

So far the Kings seem content to be puppets. While Amyntas is only 13, Alexander IV is an 18 year old, the very fact of which probably lends some weirdness to Perdikkas' claim to the regency - although I'm sure he could get another title.

I'm mostly just curious when Alexander IV is going to start acting of his own accord - and if he acquired any of his father's talents or intelligence. Regardless his mere life and existence delegitimizes anyone else's claim to the Kingship in such a way that I just don't see how it's possible that we even see anyone else call themselves Kings (except maybe Ptolemy). I rather doubt a lot of the rank and file Makedonians would even be willing to fight against him or Amyntas.

That said, the more clever Diadokhoi should be thinking about their endgame right about now. What does "winning" look like for them, and how will they attain it?

One of the more interesting things about this alternate civil war, I think, is that it can't be nearly as much about personal power as in OTL because the state structure is stronger and more legitimate.

Edit: and we already know Seleukos will be forced to flee to Africa. So this is really just the story of how far he can plummet. At least maybe there will be glory for him in the West?

As for Alexander, I was waiting for a good time to make an update exclusively about him to explain but I'll provide a shortened version here. Basically he's not really a puppet at the moment so much as his talents don't rest in military affairs. He's content to delegate the war to his partisans. Though he's also not stupid-he can trust the loyalty of Eumenes because he is a Greek who relies on him for any authority, and he similarly can trust the others because they don't have a high enough profile to make any independent bids. Perdikkas however will be a different story.

As for the kingship, the only Diadochus n a position to take that step is Peukestas, due to the extent of his control and his status among the Persian elite.

And yeah, the war is entering a kind of awkward stage since Alexander has finally came of age. Some are seeking their fortunes elsewhere, such as Demetrius and still others are trying to figure out their role. Though it is fair to wonder how loyal the local populations are to Alexander's line. The percentage of Macedonians in the armies have diminished, supplemented by native forces who's loyalty is closer to the general who organized them than to Alexander IV.

Seleucus is really just trying to survive. For a second I was wondering how you managed to figure out I was sending Seleucus to North Africa before I remembered I teased that earlier. The west does hold loads of opportunity.

 

[Practical Lobster]

And yeah, the war is entering a kind of awkward stage since Alexander has finally came of age. Some are seeking their fortunes elsewhere, such as Demetrius and still others are trying to figure out their role. Though it is fair to wonder how loyal the local populations are to Alexander's line. The percentage of Macedonians in the armies have diminished, supplemented by native forces who's loyalty is closer to the general who organized them than to Alexander IV.

One might think the native populations might have some residual loyalty to the son of a Iranian princess, perhaps.

However, my stronger argument is that Peukestas and the others who've hired extensive Asiatic forces still have no real power without at least a core of loyal Hellenic forces. No matter what they're still representatives of a conquering dynasty who should never quite trust the natives at this early stage.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

One might think the native populations might have some residual loyalty to the son of a Iranian princess, perhaps.

This is true.

However, my stronger argument is that Peukestas and the others who've hired extensive Asiatic forces still have no real power without at least a core of loyal Hellenic forces. No matter what they're still representatives of a conquering dynasty who should never quite trust the natives at this early stage.

This is true, although its effectively the only option for Peukestas that doesn't see him relinquishing large amounts of power. While residual loyalty still exists for the Argead line, some loyalty to the person who has been commanding them for at least the last few years (and longer, for some) is there as well. Also Peukestas has always been an extreme example; even IOTL he pursued strategy of being far more trusting and reliant on the local population, and took on a lot of the trappings of Persian culture. So while someone like Perdikkas or, going back a bit Craterus would be less inclined to rely on natives, Peukestas is a bit more comfortable with it. Though the big question still remains the conflicting loyalties of the Hellenistic core of his army, as you pointed out.

 

[Practical Lobster]

Yeah you're right, by this point things will be in the balamce, especially as Peukestas has already led troops against Perdikkas. Anyhow, I'm really happy to see this thread back! You've been teasing a lot of awesome future updates with this post.

At the risk of sounding needy, the two things I'm most interested in right now are probably future cultural developments and Arabia - and the former at least promises to be super interesting given the vast expansion of the Hellenic world from Iberia to India.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

The world as of now. Note this includes Peukestas's campaign against Peithon that I haven't touched on (besides mentioning it as reason for the peace):

 

[WotanArgead]

I look forward to the next part. Especially those that affect the culture and the fate of the young Argeads (sorry for some kids, not really run, sit around ...).

 

[Russian]

That opportunity soon presented itself in the form of Etruscan envoys. Having just ended a long and protracted war with the Romans, lumped together in history as part of the Second Samnite War (326-304 BCE), several Etruscan city states looked abroad for a commander who could revitalize their armies to face the Roman threat. Looking towards the saturation of talent in the east, their envoys traveled to Greece, where they met one Demetrios very eager to accept their request. Without informing Perdikkas of his plans, Demetrios silently procured several ships and slipped away with 2,000 men west to Italy.

Oh, if I am not mistaken that is going to be the first military contact of the Hellenistic Alexander the Great's successors with Rome.
I am not sure 2 000 will make any impact though...

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Yeah you're right, by this point things will be in the balamce, especially as Peukestas has already led troops against Perdikkas. Anyhow, I'm really happy to see this thread back! You've been teasing a lot of awesome future updates with this post.

At the risk of sounding needy, the two things I'm most interested in right now are probably future cultural developments and Arabia - and the former at least promises to be super interesting given the vast expansion of the Hellenic world from Iberia to India.

I look forward to the next part. Especially those that affect the culture and the fate of the young Argeads (sorry for some kids, not really run, sit around ...).

I'm most excited to get to the cultural updates as well. I have a lot of ideas floating in my head for them.

Oh, if I am not mistaken that is going to be the first military contact of the Hellenistic Alexander the Great's successors with Rome.
I am not sure 2 000 will make any impact though...

Indeed. Though what matters is the command ability of Demetrius more than the 2,000 men.

 

[Shogun]

The world as of now. Note this includes Peukestas's campaign against Peithon that I haven't touched on (besides mentioning it as reason for the peace):

When did the Greeks/Macedonians manage to conquer so much of northern India?

 

[SlyDessertFox]

When did the Greeks/Macedonians manage to conquer so much of northern India?

I'm not sure how far into India that is, but basically Macedonian control is roughly what it was when Alexander departed. I use the term "control" loosely since its a lot of small client rulers and the liked mixed in with a few Macedonian cities settled by ex-soldiers. It's a little more secure than IOTL because Chandragupta Mauyra is dead and Peithon has focused a lot of effort on maintaining control. I admit the map may show control extending too far east.

 

[Practical Lobster]

I'd suggest removing their control of anything beyond the Indus then, on the map.

Also as a very strong member of the anti-Peukestas faction, I'd like that red blob reduced substantially.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

I'd suggest removing their control of anything beyond the Indus then, on the map.

Right. I always forget how big India actually is, so what seemed like a small territory to me on that map is actually quite large on its own.

Also as a very strong member of the anti-Peukestas faction, I'd like that red blob reduced substantially.

At least this isn't my original idea. Originally Alexander and Amyntas would have gone the way of the dodo bird right now and Peukestas would be in the process of mopping of resistance to control over the entire empire.

 

[Practical Lobster]

Right. I always forget how big India actually is, so what seemed like a small territory to me on that map is actually quite large on its own.

At least this isn't my original idea. Originally Alexander and Amyntas would have gone the way of the dodo bird right now and Peukestas would be in the process of mopping of resistance to control over the entire empire.

I think that's an issue of the super weird projection of that map.

Eww. I am glad you didn't go that route. While Peukestas is an interesting figure (being the one of the few non-Alexander guys who actually appreciated the native Persians) I also like the idea of the Argead dynasty surviving too much to support his ambitions, which seem incompatible with that future. Plus, "Peukestid" dynasty doesn't have a very good ring to it.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Plus, "Peukestid" dynasty doesn't have a very good ring to it.

It really doesn't.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Chapter XX: Philosophy in the Emerging Hellenistic World

​

Until mid 4th century BCE, western philosophy could be divided into two distinct groups: The Pre-Socratics, and the Socratics. Philosophy emerged in Greece in the 6th century BCE with the Ionian Greek Thales of Miletos. Thales rejected traditional mythological explanations in his quest for what his student and successor, Anaximander would later define as archê; the original principle of things. He sought rational natural explanations to describe natural phenomena. While his explanations, such as the idea that the Earth floated on water and thus earthquakes were merely the Earth being rocked by waves, may seem preposterous today, they were a significant departure from the traditional tendency to invoke the will of anthropomorphic deities to explain natural phenomena.

According to Aristotle, from whom we get most of our information about the first philosopher, Thales started by asking what was the nature of an object that gave it its characteristics. From this foundation, Thales created his own theories and hypotheses, becoming the first person to use a prototypical version of what would become the scientific method. In his search for arche, Thales arrived at his own cosmological thesis, concluding that the principle of all things was water.

Other philosophers would come to different conclusions, but all focused on understanding arche. To Anaximander, arche was apeiron, an infinite and undefined substance, and to his contemporary Anaximenes, it was air. The Pythagoreans believed everything to be in perfect harmony, while the Ephesians hypothesized that all things originated from fire, with all existence being in a perpetual state of change. In opposition to this philosophy, the Eleatics claimed the fundamental truth of a universal unity of being, and that there could have been no creation, for existence could not arise from non-existence. To the pluralist Empedocles, there was not one but four unchangeable original substances, earth, water, air and fire. Finally there were the atomists and the philosophy's most famous proponents, Leukippos and Demokritos. As their name suggests, atomists believed that everything is composed of two principles, atoms and void. These are, in fact, the only things that actually exist, as everything else is merely composed of atoms motioning in an otherwise empty void. What is important is not what conclusions these pre-socratics reached, but how they reached them. Whether eleatics or atomists, all of the philosophers used some form of logical reasoning--whether inductive, deductive, or, in the case of the atomists, reductive--to defend their hypotheses.

Then along came Socrates. As Socratic philosophy is known mostly through the dialogues written by Plato, it is difficult to discern what the philosophy of Socrates actually was. Aside from the fact that his dialogues often offer contradictory philosophical viewpoints, entire books can be, and have been, written on discerning the difference between how much of the dialogues is actually Socrates, and how much is Plato inserting his own philosophy. According to Socrates, the best way to live was in pursuit of knowledge and virtue. He rejected the view of the sophists that knowledge and virtue were qualities that could be taught. Rather, these things were gained through relentless questioning on anything and everything. The Socratic method, which consisted of questioning someone's point of view until they contradicted themselves, thus weakening their argument and strengthening Socrates's won him few friends. His favorable attitudes towards Sparta and disputing the principle that "might makes right", won him even fewer friends in democratic Athens, and equally few defenders when his annoyed Athenian colleagues eventually forced him to drink hemlock.

Plato would expand on platonic philosophy, but aside from his dialogues of Socrates, his most influential work for our purposes is his Republic. In the Republic, Plato discusses five regimes, aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. Plato advocates for a three tiered aristocratic state, made up of the golden ruling class of philosopher kings, followed by the silver soldier class, and the bronze class consisting of the rest of the population. To Plato, the aristocrat is an ideal philosopher, a selfless and scrupulous intellectual, educated in Platonic ideals. The end result resembles more a mix between a meritocracy and technocracy, where the most intelligent children are trained to become the technocratic philosopher kings of the society, regardless of birth. Eventually, aristocracy degenerates progressively into timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and finally, when democracy descends into chaos, tyranny emerges.

Aristotle studied at Plato's Academy for 20 years until Plato's death in 347. More than a philosopher, Aristotle became the epitome of the Hellenistic Man[1]. He was both philosopher and scientist, botanist and historian, rhetorician and poet. He wrote about everything from metaphysics to political theory. The resources available to him from tutoring Alexander The Great allowed him to found his own school, the Lyceon, which doubled as a school producing his gluttony of books. More like Thales than Socrates or Plato in his focus on the natural sciences, Aristotle is known to history as the first empiricist. While Plato believed knowledge was based on what is intelligible, rather than what was visible, according to Aristotle, all knowledge was based on perception. In other words, the real world was the visible world.

In his political theory, Aristotle believed politics to be like an organism, with humanity being a political animal that is separated from the rest of the animal kingdom by its rationality. He viewed man's natural community as the polis, which Aristotle defines as a partnership. According to Aristotle, "The political partnership [the polis] must be regarded, therefore, as being for the sake of noble actions, not for the sake of living together." The goal of the polis is to make citizens morally good and alter their character towards achieving "noble actions." This would become a major sticking point later on between followers of Aristotle and those followers of the Epicurean social contract theory promoted by Apollonios of Astakos.

By the Hellenistic era, new forms of philosophical thought emerged. The predominant school of thought that emerged in this period became Epicureanism. Although often mistaken with hedonism, the two should not be confused. Epicureanism as taught by Epicurus drew from atomist thought and sought the avoidance of suffering, rather than the pursuit of pleasure of hedonists. The ultimate goal was a joint state of ataraxia, tranquility and the absence of aponia, physical pain. This is the greatest pleasure, attained through a simple and modest life.

Although Epicurus advocated shunning politics, his student Apollonios of Astakos nonetheless applied Epicureanism to the political realm. This created a schism within the school, with Epicurus's star pupil, Hemarchos, rallying those Epicureans who still turned away from the political scene. It is unknown how much Apollonios cared. He was, by all accounts, a polarizing personality, who, like Socrates made few friends with his Socratic style of questioning. We know he thought very little of Hemarchos, whom he once accused of not having ever uttered a single original thought. He would often clash with the Argead King Alexander IV, who, despite being a firm admirer of his, once quipped that he had never met a man so willing to voraciously defend any and every point, no matter how minor or pedantic. Eventually Alexander tired of him and let him return to Alexandria, where he had set up his
school, dubbed the mouseion.

It would not be the first or the last time his personality forced him to seek new accommodations elsewhere. He would become quite the traveler, being first pushed out of Epicurus's school by Hemarchos, from whence he traveled to Alexandria and set up his mouseion thanks to the patronage of the once king Amyntas, who since renouncing his claims to the throne had become a vociferous promoter of science and philosophy, transforming his chosen spot of Alexandria into an intellectual paradise. An impressed King Alexander invited him to head his royal library in Babylon, and, after his departure from there, he was invited to head the rival royal library in Karkhedon. Predictable personality clashes there saw his eventual return to his school in Alexandria, where at least his devoted followers appreciated his style.

Like Aristotle, Apollonios believed man to be a political animal. Where he differed was in the function and purpose of the social partnership that Aristotle described as the polis. Apollonios understood the social partnership to be a contract between the people and the government, where the people voluntarily submit to an authority in exchange for protection and a ruler governing in their best interests. Aside from protection, the goal of the government was creating the best conditions for, and promoting the idea of, the avoidance of suffering and pursuit of ataraxia. A government that failed at this and became self-serving, consequently, had not held up their end of the contract and would lose the consent of the people. Thus, it was destined to fail.

Apollonios believed all government forms were capable of administering the social contract, though he focused on the social contract in monarchies, as he viewed that as the ascendant political philosophy of the day. He famously was only interested in practical political theory, deriding Plato's ideal government as an ultimately useless exercise with a society that could never come into being. Yet the appeal of the philosopher king seeps into his writing. Apollonios's ideal monarch is, like Plato's, a selfless ruler, well educated in Epicurean philosophy and ideals. The monarch starts out with a mandate from the people to provide protection and a just government. In pursuit of this, the monarch has absolute power to manage and implement his policies. Yet this mandate is not without responsibilities, and can be forfeited if the monarch fails in his duty, thus relinquishing his right to rule.

This philosophy was attractive to Alexander IV as a justification for his rule, solidifying his attachment to Epicurean thought. Different versions of it would proliferate, with a particularly unique take being taken in Karkhedon and Rome.

The main competing philosophy with Epicureanism to emerge later in the Hellenistic era was stoicism. As first taught by Zeno of Kition, stoicism related that happiness was achieved through accepting the cards one was dealt and resisting the urge to be controlled by a desire for pleasure or fear of pain. Emotions resulted in judgmental errors, and were thus destructive forces. Virtue was achieved through maintaining behavior in agreement with nature; he would amend his will to suit his environment. Everyone was a product of nature, and thus all men, including the enslaved, were considered equal.

In competition with Epicureanism, stoicism struggled to gain traction in the Hellenistic world, though it would possess some attractiveness in the Roman world. Stoic philosophy, including the concept that all men were equal (note: equality not in a political or social context, as stoics were not opposed to slavery, but in a natural and moral context) resulted in their own unique takes on social contract theory, in competition with the Epicurean model.

Ultimately, philosophy in the Hellenistic world diverged from the Socratic and Platonic models that had proceeded, opening up new branches of philosophical and even political thought. The influence of Apollonios of Astakos, who, rough interpersonal qualities aside, was one of the most intelligent thinkers of his time, allowed him to also become one of the most consequential thinkers in western philosophy and political theory.

[1] TTL version of the Renaissance man

 

[SlyDessertFox]

I thoroughly enjoyed turning at @Practical Lobster into an insufferable yet brilliant philosopher (note: I don't think you're insufferable in real life, you're actually a really nice guy. ). Also, I know I spelled Apollonios wrong in the image, I'm just too lazy to change it right now.

 

[Frrf]

Interesting, Apollonian Epicurianism seems to be acting in the Argead Empire much the same way Confucianism did in most Chinese empires. I wonder, how much of a conflict is there between Apollonian Epicurianism and Hemarchian Epicurianism? Let alone with Stoicism, Pythagorianism or Platonism. Still, it is interesting to see that Amyntas gave up his throne willingly, which suggests he and Alexander get on, especially as Amyntas as not been locked away but rather given freedom and significant financial resources. The mention of a royal court in Karkhêdon is also interesting, it seems to indicate that, if not officially, Ptolomy is for all intents and purposes independant. The establishment of multiple great libraries and centres of learning is also interesting, and perhaps points to a faster technological progression. On the other hand, of course, it might just come crashing down around everyone's ears in a few generations with little to show for it long term. Regardless, very interesting and I look forward to more of these cultural updates. They really are my favourites.

 

[WotanArgead]

[1] TTL version of the Renaissance man

I do not think that Aristotle can be called a Renaissance man. IMHO - an outstanding naturalist of his time (which nevertheless still neglect the some of the findings of his predecessors) in moral terms was wild as the Egyptian priests. In this regard, it is rather a bunch of prejudices of his time (and in a very exaggerated form).

 

[Skallagrim]

Like Aristotle, Apollonios believed man to be a political animal. Where he differed was in the function and purpose of the social partnership that Aristotle described as the polis. Apollonios understood the social partnership to be a contract between the people and the government, where the people voluntarily submit to an authority in exchange for protection and a ruler governing in their best interests. Aside from protection, the goal of the government was creating the best conditions for, and promoting the idea of, the avoidance of suffering and pursuit of ataraxia and aponia. A government that failed at this and became self-serving, consequently, had not held up their end of the contract and would lose the consent of the people. Thus, it was destined to fail.

Apollonios believed all government forms were capable of administering the social contract, though he focused on the social contract in monarchies, as he viewed that as the ascendant political philosophy of the day. He famously was only interested in practical political theory, deriding Plato's ideal government as an ultimately useless exercise with a society that could never come into being. Yet the appeal of the philosopher king seeps into his writing. Apollonios's ideal monarch is, like Plato's, a selfless ruler, well educated in Epicurean philosophy and ideals. The monarch starts out with a mandate from the people to provide protection and a just government. In pursuit of this, the monarch has absolute power to manage and implement his policies. Yet this mandate is not without responsibilities, and can be forfeited if the monarch fails in his duty, thus relinquishing his right to rule.

Wow. That's a bit as if John Locke just showed up two thousand years early. That will certainly have major effects. Not just philosophically, but politically as well. I'm particularly excited to see it in an Epicurean context, which school of thought seems set to to be far more succesful in this TL than in OTL.

In competition with Epicureanism, stoicism struggled to gain traction in the Hellenistic world, though it would possess some attractiveness in the Roman world. Stoic philosophy, including the concept that all men were equal (note: equality not in a political or social context, as stoics were not opposed to slavery, but in a natural and moral context) resulted in their own unique takes on social contract theory, in competition with the Epicurean model.

Stoicism, on the other hand, comes across as a bit stunted compared to OTL. Perhaps I'm reading that wrong, but either way, I'd be happy to see a TL where Epicureanism does better, while stoicism fades more to the background.

TTL version of the Renaissance man

I do not think that Aristotle can be called a Renaissance man. IMHO - an outstanding naturalist of his time (which nevertheless still neglect the some of the findings of his predecessors) in moral terms was wild as the Egyptian priests. In this regard, it is rather a bunch of prejudices of his time (and in a very exaggerated form).

I must disagree here: Aristotle was pretty much a universal genius, and the negative interpretation of his achievements ("a bunch of prejudices of his time") is completely unwarranted. It's a misconception which I find is usually based on an overzealous reading of Betrand Russell's critique of Aristotle. Russel essentially pointed out all the vast flaws in Aristotle's thinking, stating that every advance in thinking for the past few thousand essentially had to start with first dismantling some Aristotelian dogma or other. True, but he then also points out that from that perspective, it's all too easy to forget that those Aristotelian dogmas are so common because the man essentially contributed - on a fundamental level - to every single field of knowledge known in his day.

He was often wrong, which he could hardly not be, in a pre-scientific age, but he was usually far less wrong than his predecessors and contemporaries. What I'm trying to say is: lots of Renaissance thinkers and Enlightenment thinkers were also wrong about a lot. Isaac Newton believed firmly in the mystical truth of alchemy, for instance. Aristotle may have been period-typically terrible about politics and social issues, but the fact remains that he was a "universal genius", who was as well-schooled in every field as anyone in his day, and contributed to all those fields.

If he'd been born in the Renaissance, with access to the knowledge of that time, he'd be the Renaissance man.

#AristotleDefenceSquad