Of Satraps and Kings
- Thread starter SlyDessertFox
- Start date
Argead Empire At Death of Alexander The Great
Not an update but a sneak peak into the future:
ALEXANDER IS MAKING BONDS BETWEEN WESTERN EURASIANS!!
I normally don't like the concept of the Alexandrian Empire living on, namely because of Greek xenophobia, but if you're playing Alexander's anti xenophobia card this hard I absolutely cannot say no!
Thank you for making this timeline!
I normally don't like the concept of the Alexandrian Empire living on, namely because of Greek xenophobia, but if you're playing Alexander's anti xenophobia card this hard I absolutely cannot say no!
Thank you for making this timeline!
I wouldn't necessarily call this a surviving Alexandrian Empire timeline (some hints as to the future have been spliced in, if anyone is inclined to figure them out). However, you are correct in the direction I am going in. The main knock on effects should already become apparent: There is an active ethnic mixing policy being promoted by Alexander. The weddings in Susa in 324, rather than mostly falling apart immediately after Alexander's death the next year, have been kept intact for 6 years by this point, meaning many of them have almost certainly resulted in children. Just as important, the Asiatic pikemen have now had crucial experience in 2 major campaigns by Alexander, and many of the colonies he established have had time to solidify themselves. What is done cannot simply be undone, in other words. IOTL Alexander's assimilation policies were still in their infancy when he died. Here, they have had years to bear fruit.Survival of his empire
While I do believe Alexander's empire could survive in one form or another for a long time to come, I don't believe it will stay whole for very long after his death.
A best the empire could maintain its size for a couple of generations assuming a series of competent kings, and no wars of succession. But going off of what happened to the Seleucids, the empire will still fall apart starting from India and Afghanistan. By the time the Romans get around to conquering the east, the empire should be much reduced, maintaining a firm grasp on the Greek peninsula and southern Anatolia, but a shaky grasp on part of Mesopotamia.
While I do believe Alexander's empire could survive in one form or another for a long time to come, I don't believe it will stay whole for very long after his death.
A best the empire could maintain its size for a couple of generations assuming a series of competent kings, and no wars of succession. But going off of what happened to the Seleucids, the empire will still fall apart starting from India and Afghanistan. By the time the Romans get around to conquering the east, the empire should be much reduced, maintaining a firm grasp on the Greek peninsula and southern Anatolia, but a shaky grasp on part of Mesopotamia.
The Romans rise is not a given in this timeline. And in any case, the Seleucid Empire's loss of the east had a lot to do with the Romans. Antiochus III did much to restore it, but losses to the Romans and then Roman interference in Seleucid politics hampered their ability to defend the east significantly.
Last edited:
They may not be quite as powerful in this timeline, but your first post does say that it was roman legions that shattered Alexander's phalanx. It is this line that gives me the assumption that Rome will rise, if not quite as high, in this TL.
Whatever the case, I eagerly await the next update.
The first post was a rehash of OTL events. I do have plans for the Romans though.
Not an update but a sneak peak into the future:
I think Kirenaika naturally belongs to the Alexander's Empire. Even the Ptolemaic Egypt was able to hold it in OTL.
I find it odd that Kyrene, Sparta, Heraklea and Sinope aren't in the Empire....especially the first 3, given their location and strategic importance. Plus Crete, and what's happening in the few remaining Greek city colonies?...Wouldn't they see the benefits of joining the Empire or are trying to remain independent?
Though am interested to see what comes next. Rarely see many Alexander timelines lasting long, so be good to see this play out long after his death.
Though am interested to see what comes next. Rarely see many Alexander timelines lasting long, so be good to see this play out long after his death.
Sparta in particular is as OTL. Crete also was not conquered by Alexander in OTL, and would represent a major military expedition.
Kyrene probably should be in the Empire, at least nominally, and I can see whatever Satraps are in Asia Minor securing places like Sinope.
Kyrene probably should be in the Empire, at least nominally, and I can see whatever Satraps are in Asia Minor securing places like Sinope.
As practical lobster pointed out below, Crete and Sparta were not part of Alexander's empire IOTL. Neither were worth the effort-Sparta posed no threat and would never join the empire willilingly unless they were destroyed completely, and Alexander doesn't really need the public relations hit in Greece that comes with destroying another famous city. Crete just has no value and also isn't worth the effort-it's too fractured and as long as Alexander's empire controls the seas piracy from there wouldn't be a problem.
As for Sinope, Heraclea, and Kyrene, none of them were part of Alexander's empire OTL. That's largely a result of the trajectory of Alexander's campaign, and he never bothered or really had the time to conquer it. Nor, from his perspective, did it matter much. AFAIK the Armenian King was a friendly ally, and out of all the areas, only Cappadocia/Pontos actually still had a renegade Persian ruler. That was usually handled by Antigonos, who kept Anatolia safe and secure for the duration of Alexander's life. The same holds true here-Alexander has far "grander" things on his mind, and after Carthage there will be more pressing problems.
As for Kyrene, as I understand it, Kyrenaica was not seized until Ptolemy shortly after he arrived in Egypt. It's another case of minor diplomacy and empire consolidation that Alexander always seemed to put off.
That's true. I also have plans for her family so she won't be committing suicide (immediately at least). Stay tuned.
There aren't nothing predetermined...
Must remember that in both this TTL or OTL, there aren't nothing predetermined in the Roma rise to Hegemony or that the Mediterranean will become in the Mare Nostrum.
Must remember that in both this TTL or OTL, there aren't nothing predetermined in the Roma rise to Hegemony or that the Mediterranean will become in the Mare Nostrum.
In fact, there's a decent chance that this has already butterflied the rise of a recognizable Roman empire...
Actually, that's the point - the trajectory - Kyrenaica is squeezed in between Egypt and Carthage. So the Grand Army and the Grand Navy was moving near Kyrene on the way to conquer Carthage; and on the way back home.
The most natural idea is "Hey, guys, let's stop here, have a picnic and conquer the nice place!"
Being heavily Hellenized the area would have probably given up without a fight.
These are both very true statements. I do have plans for the Romans, but I'm still not entirely sure how I'm going to handle them.
Well Alexander's sailing to Carthage takes the trajectory along the coast of Anatolia, across the Ionian Sea to Tarentum, and then to Syracuse. From Sicily it's a short hop to North Africa. Though, as I think about it, Alexander's return might take a different route as he was known for doing, and he may decide just to march along the North African coast to Egypt. So you may be correct.
Hm... moving an army through Sahara is crazy enough.
I mean Alexander the Great must have taken this route.
If I am not mistaken the Romans later built something like a road there.
That would be quite natural for Alexander to build a road between his precious possessions - Egypt and Carthage.